Iranian Revolutionary Guard behind kidnapping of 5 Britons

[Martinus]

In times like this I miss having someone like Maggie ordering retaliatory airstrikes.

Brown won't do it. He doesn't have balls (not counting the "Special Ed" ones, that is).

[Josquius]

Becuase it was not changing for the better, it was not democratic, and it was not moving forward in anything except nuclear weapons programs.

Not true.
The entire reason for last year's chaos was that the election fixing came so out of the blue. Iranian elections before hand have been pretty darn fair and democratic. It wasn't a democracy on a par with western nations due to the powers held by the religious authorities but there was a significant amount of democracy and it was real, not only on paper.
The country has been steadily modernising, its economy coming on very well; one of the world's true developing countries. The people becoming ever more secular modern. It was really looking like things were changing, the conservatives would steadily need to become less and less conservative to appeal to the people and the country would steadily change.
You make fun of people defending Iran by saying it was changing; well you don't see much of them around anymore, the situation has changed for the worse. Before the election however they were in the right.

[CountDeMoney]

Not true.
The entire reason for last year's chaos was that the election fixing came so out of the blue. Iranian elections before hand have been perfectly fair and democratic. It wasn't a democracy on a par with western nations due to the powers held by the religious authorities but there was a significant amount of democracy and it was real, not only on paper.
The country has been steadily modernising, its economy coming on very well; one of the world's true developing countries. The people becoming ever more secular modern. It was really looking like things were changing, the conservatives would steadily need to become less and less conservative to appeal to the people and the country would steadily change.
You make fun of people defending Iran by saying it was changing; well you don't see much of them around anymore, the situation has changed for the worse. Before the election however they were in the right.

You operate under the assumption that a handful of disorderlies from the election was some sort of populist groundswell.  It wasn't.
A couple of molotov cocktails and a dead chick on a cellphone camera does not a democratic movement make.

Sucker.

[Josquius]

You operate under the assumption that a handful of disorderlies from the election was some sort of populist groundswell.  It wasn't.
A couple of molotov cocktails and a dead chick on a cellphone camera does not a democratic movement make.

Sucker.

Did you read what I wrote?

[CountDeMoney]

You operate under the assumption that a handful of disorderlies from the election was some sort of populist groundswell.  It wasn't.
A couple of molotov cocktails and a dead chick on a cellphone camera does not a democratic movement make.

Sucker.

Did you read what I wrote?

No.  Promptly dismissed as Iranopologist bullshit.  Sell your agiprop elsewhere, we're all stocked up here.

[grumbler]

...there was a significant amount of democracy and it was real, not only on paper.

Disagree.  There was only as much democracy as the clerics allowed; the "rule of the people" was to choose between choices presented by the clerics.

That is classic "democracy in theory not practice."

The country has been steadily modernising, its economy coming on very well; one of the world's true developing countries. The people becoming ever more secular modern. It was really looking like things were changing, the conservatives would steadily need to become less and less conservative to appeal to the people and the country would steadily change.

I agree with this, at least in the cities.  The backlash in the countryside, though, that that which occurrs in all revolutions, made the modernization less real and complete than it looked to city-bound observers, though.

You make fun of people defending Iran by saying it was changing; well you don't see much of them around anymore, the situation has changed for the worse. Before the election however they were in the right.

It is Seedy's schtick (and Neil's as well, for that matter).  Schtick doesn't care about who is right.  Just sit back and watch it.  It is pretty funny, and Seedy does it pretty well.

[CountDeMoney]

Schtick doesn't care about who is right.

I don't write the schtick;  the schtick writes me.

[Josquius]

Disagree.  There was only as much democracy as the clerics allowed; the "rule of the people" was to choose between choices presented by the clerics.

That is classic "democracy in theory not practice."

Limited democracy is still democracy.  Especially compared to what people imagined Iran was like and what its neighbours are like.
Yeah, the clerics vetted the candidates, but given how well the most left wingers allowed generally did its likely that if there wasn't the vetting process in place those deemed inappropriate wouldn't have got anywhere anyway.

I agree with this, at least in the cities.  The backlash in the countryside, though, that that which occurrs in all revolutions, made the modernization less real and complete than it looked to city-bound observers, though.

True.
But a big part of Iran's modernisation has been massive urbanisation, as in Europe the power of the countryside will fade. Iran isn't there yet but in fully modern countries its the cities that ultimately matter (in the old world at least, the US is...odd)

[CountDeMoney]

Limited democracy is still democracy.

Don't stop believin'.

[Josquius]

Don't stop believin'.

Don't be dumb.
Democracy, freedom, etc... isn't a flat yes or no. It comes in degrees.
Liberal western democracy > limited democracy > no democracy.
Iran was the 2nd. You are talking of the last (not that it comes into a flat, sort of and no either, its more complicated  than that)

[The Brain]

Liberal western democracy > limited democracy > no democracy.

Not in Iran's case. Using their "limited democracy" they promptly elected a parade of Islamonutters. Non-exile Iranians = massive fail.

[Jaron]

You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

[The Brain]

You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.

[Josquius]

You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

Or a fabian tactic of the masses to appease the power thirst of the dictators. 

[Jaron]

You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.

God Bless America