4 ms·

Yeah, but he also adds: "Currently Iran is just the result of what happens if conservative fundamentals got ahold of the government of a country." Well, not al

Yeah, but he also adds: "Currently Iran is just the result of what happens if conservative fundamentals got ahold of the government of a country." Well, not all can be explained by "conservative fundamentals getting ahold of the government". This amounts to "their people are really like us, it's their government that's bad". There EXIST people/populations/countries that are conservative/unlike Americans in general, and have every right to live however the f* they want to. Western media turn a blind eye to millions of Iranian/whatever people that WANT to live like they do, and RESPECT their country's ideals, and instead celebrate a few hundred idiots with tweeter accounts and blogs that want to live like westerners and are totally unrepresentative of the general population -- a lot of them sponsored by foreign countries (at least with lectures, sponsorships etc). What exactly is specifically bad about the Iranian government that other countries have not already did, including the US? US has: the death penalty (including teens), segregation until, what, the 60s (!!!), 500% more black people in jail than white, one of the largest prison populations in the world, hollier than thou attitude, tons of fundamentalists and bible yielders, tons of wars around the globe to secure oil and resources, huge corrupted multinationals, some 20% of the population below the poverty line, on of the lamest popular cultures worldwide, PIPA, SOPA, the Patriot Act, detention and/or murder of foreign nationals without trial, etc...

dendory 15y ago
When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion. You can defend ideals, you cannot defend barbarism. Some of the things these people do (and others in various parts of the world) are uncivilized in any society.
- icebraining 15y ago
  When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from? Don't get me wrong, I'm all of helping (in not very intrusive ways) the westernized Iranians steer their country in their direction, but that's just because I like those ideals and notion of right and wrong, not because they're somehow objectively right.
  - mpyne 15y ago
    > Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from? That's a large debate on its own (read up on John Stuart Mill for instance) but essentially you're arguing for a philosophy called relativism, the end of which is that there's nothing objectively right... On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      While I'd say I am in fact a moral relativist, I'd also say I'm not exactly arguing for it. As far as I can see, relativism is the agnosticism of morality - in the lack of evidence for an objective moral code, the only reasonable, logical position is relativism. On the other hand, I'm rather ignorant about the subject, so my opinion isn't to be taken very seriously. On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too. Sure, but I can still dislike it, which in practice means the same (essentially nothing, since my influence is zero ;)
- dextorious 15y ago
  """When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. """ Actually, people weren't talking that much about Iran before --it's just because it happens to be the current target, so western media plays Iran a lot. It's also for the same reason why people DON'T talk about Saudi Arabia, which is 10 times worse in those aspects than Iran --but since it's an ally, it doesn't get played unfavorably much, if at all. Now, what are things that are "by any definition wrong"? Who gives the definition? Let's see your examples: """You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion.""" In the US 50 years ago there was prevalent racism against black people (heck, there were hotels/restaurants etc not accepting them as customers). Was that civilized? No. So, would another country be justified to say, bomb the US and topple the government to pass laws to change that? I say, no, the people of the US would have to do it themselves (as they eventually did). So, why should it be different for any other country? And who says that all countries should get to the same level of "civilization" at the same time? For example, besides abolishing slavery earlier, tons of countries had women voting much earlier than the US did. And tons of countries have abolished the death penalty already. You say "you simply cannot, in any modern society throw (a) stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion". And I say, that in modern societies like the one I live, you simply cannot execute anyone AT ALL, whatever he said or did. It's unacceptable. When is the US going to come around to this one? And how is stoning worse than the (horrible) electric chair or the (disgusting) gas chamber? Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation. I don't even care if they are cannibals in country X, let them do what the f... they want. No one should dictate how other societies should live.
  - stdgy 15y ago
    While I agree with much of the sentiment expressed in your post, I must take issue with: Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation. Can a society really be said to 'want and believe in' something if the society isn't structured to allow for a reasonable form of self-government? We shouldn't be looking to protect sovereign nations. We should be looking to protect sovereign peoples. If a group is truly sovereign and self-governing, then their choices should be respected. Not incidentally, the requirements for a sovereign, self-governing people align closely with principles of human rights. I find it difficult to conclude that countries like Iran(rampant electoral fraud), North Korea(dictatorship) and Saudi Arabia are home to sovereign peoples. Sovereign nations, sure. But a border seems like a poor substitute to the collective wills of a people. And it's far from clear that these countries' actions are the expression of that will. I suppose a rebuke to this point would be to question whether any nation is truly governed by a sovereign people, or if this is merely another form of Western projection? But I think that would be a difficult argument.
- calibraxis 15y ago
  The US and UK overthrew Iran's democratically elected secular government, installing the Shah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%C3%A9tat) Us Anglo-Americans are in no moral position to judge Iranians (or anyone else really), since our governments are the cause of so many of their misfortunes. (Imagine if China one day did similar to the US; how far would we regress in terms of hard-won civil rights?) And we're still threatening and dominating them.
  - pooriaazimi 15y ago
    Your link goes nowhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
- ajays 15y ago
  You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion. And yet the US is the strongest ally of the worst offenders in this regard, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Women can't vote or drive in Saudi Arabia; heck, they can't even go out alone, and can't go out with a male who is not a blood relative or husband. And oh, even when they go out in a car, they can't sit in the front.
  - johnyzee 15y ago
    Not to mention that America electrocutes people to death, which may be slightly cleaner than a stoning but not exactly humanitarian.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
skeptical 15y ago
While I agree with you, your last paragraph is just non sense. What's specifically bad? Honestly, if you ask this question you're shouting out that you have no idea what today's iran (or most of the muslim countries) are like. Quite frankly, visit iran and see for yourself. A word of advice though: if you happen to be a woman, I would recommend taking my word for granted instead. Just my advice.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """While I agree with you, your last paragraph is just non sense. What's specifically bad? Honestly, if you ask this question you're shouting out that you have no idea what today's iran (or most of the muslim countries) are like.""" You don't get to judge Iran as "bad in general" by your standards, though. You only get to judge Iran as "bad for you", by your standards. If you want to judge Iran as "bad in general", you'd have to also show that the people of Iran don't want to live like they do. Because if they DO want to live like they do (which I assure you it's the case in general), then there's nothing bad about Iran. They just live in a way that you happen to disagree with. They never came to tell you how to live YOUR life, though.
  - skeptical 15y ago
    I'm sorry, if I'm Iranian myself does your reply still applies? Just wondering. I'm tired of this political correctness, it's so 90's. But it will take more than a couple of downvotes to shut me up. This "everybody has the right to their way of living" is getting old and stupid. Have you ever visited Iran? I find it interesting that when I talk about this subject with people from muslim countries, they understand me very well and mostly agree with me, while most westerns prefer to paint everything with fairy-tale colors and say that they are 'tolerant' to every culture. Anyway, your comment is almost semantically null. Why wouldn't it be obvious that anyone's judgement has whatever credibility you want to give it? Furthermore, By assuming that everything is subjective you're basically stating that you won't dare to stand for any opinion of yours.
    - dextorious 15y ago
dasil003 15y ago
On the one hand yeah America has its share of dirty laundry, no doubt about it. On the other hand, civil unrest in Iran is not just a couple hundred kids who want to live like westerners.
zalew 15y ago
> a few hundred idiots with tweeter accounts and blogs a few hundred?? rly? idiots??? http://vimeo.com/2232226 http://vimeo.com/2232226
- dextorious 15y ago
  I was talking about the showcases "celebrated" by the western media. And "http://vimeo.com/2232226 http://vimeo.com/2232226? Really? This is coarse-grained propaganda, if I ever saw one! As a commenter on Boing Boing says: """Yeah IMO stories like this one are useful in preparing the public's psych & emotions for the upcoming US "let's display bi-partisan foreign policy" demonstration...in other words, for Obama & his Secdef Gates' planned attack on Iran. Any secret special US Forces ops going on right now? Or are your "journalists" doing their "patriotic duty" by looking away, to enable another War? How do you distinguish between those Iranians it's OK for the USA to attack or maim or kill and those who aren't? Are only employees and civil servants of the State of Iran and those who actively oppose US control/diktaat over Iranian domestic policy "fair game"? Or is it only those Iranians who happen to live in Iran ? Or those opposed to the views of "freedom-loving" Iranians living in foreign exile? I think the USA/Western media should STFU about Iran, and and instead direct their efforts at getting NATO and the US Armed Forces to immediately stop killing Asians. This would show their humanitarianism, if not their usefulness....""" Designed to let the viewer with the impression that those blogs support toppling the government, changing their way of life etc. It basically uses the notion of having a blog as axiomatically meaning that. Have you read a lot of those actual blogs, not just the selected few celebrated in our media? http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/06/16/are-you-ready-for-war-with-a-demonized-iran/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/06/16/are-you-ready-for-war...
  - zalew 15y ago
    > Have you read a lot of those actual blogs, not just the selected few celebrated in our media? I read books about Iran, watch Iranian cinema, and in a few days I'm hopefully getting my visa, so I couldn't care less about comments on boingboing or propaganda in American media, as my subject of interest exceeds their international affairs. But I know what's your point (from the previous post), and we probably share a common view on that, I was just a bit surprised you put a label on activism that they're idiots, just because mainstream media selectively presents only information targetted at idiots. And the video was just to illustrate the numbers of online activity from Iranians, nothing else.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ck2 15y ago
I did not exclude American conservative fundamentalists - they are indeed a plague on our society as they are ANYWHERE. ANYWHERE there is conservative fundamentalism it means people's freedom is being restricted. Gitmo, Patriot Act, SOPA - none of these came out of progressive thinking - they are throwbacks to conservative desires regardless who votes for them.
beagle3 15y ago
> What exactly is specifically bad about the Iranian government that other countries have not already did, including the US? Did you notice that Libya, Tunisia and Egypt already had a popular revolution, and that Syria is still having one? Would you have said, 12 months ago, that the majority of Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans WANT to live like they do, and RESPECT their country's ideals? If not, why not? and why is Iran different? If so -- then, 12 months later, when you have proof positive that it wasn't the case 12 months earlier -- why do you think Iran is different (except in the sense that the popular green revolution has not succeeded)
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Did you notice that Libya, Tunisia and Egypt already had a popular revolution, and that Syria is still having one? Would you have said, 12 months ago, that the majority of Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans WANT to live like they do, and RESPECT their country's ideals?""" Not only I noticed, but I live near those parts of the world, have friends there, and know that what you seem to believe about those countries has nothing to do with the reality. The popular revolutions did not happen because they wanted to be more like americans, or because they rejected islam or whatever. The western media just overplayed some guys on twitter and similar figures that have little to do with the actual struggle, as if they represent the will of the people. The western governments also overplay their people there, like politicians with 10% of the vote and such. Students, another group that was also overplayed, was a tiny minority in those revolting. And yet, people draw conclusions and pretend to know all about the politics and tensions of those areas from news articles spoon fed to them. This is similar to some foreign news source showing, say, Glenn Beck and assuring his audience that "all americans think like that". There have been power struggles and political antagonisms for thousands of years, in all parts of the world. When one happens to happen to a country that the us doesn't like, it doesn't mean that the people doing it suddenly decided to adopt a different way of living. It just means that they don't like dictators (or even that they just don't like their current dictator), period. Also, while the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia where genuine, the revolts in Libya where mostly BS, as the population could care less about Khadaffi's rule. Unlike the other revolts, this only succeeded because of heavy backing, military and otherwise, from the west, interested in the oil. And it's not like things are going to turn for the better there (or even in Egypt and Tunisia, if the interested foreign powers are going to have their way), most probaly they will turn into something like Iraq, substituting a dictatorship with livable conditions and stability to a nightmare of civil war, ethnic cleansing, foreign exploitation, and EVEN MORE islamic fundamendalism etc...
mseebach 15y ago
> millions of Iranian/whatever people that WANT to live like they do It is really not an unreasonable assumption that the population living under a totalitarian regime, does, in fact, not want to. > What exactly is specifically bad about the Iranian government that other countries have not already did, including the US? The rule of law. The rest amounts to rounding errors.

dendory 15y ago

When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion. You can defend ideals, you cannot defend barbarism. Some of the things these people do (and others in various parts of the world) are uncivilized in any society.

icebraining 15y ago
When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from? Don't get me wrong, I'm all of helping (in not very intrusive ways) the westernized Iranians steer their country in their direction, but that's just because I like those ideals and notion of right and wrong, not because they're somehow objectively right.
- mpyne 15y ago
  > Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from? That's a large debate on its own (read up on John Stuart Mill for instance) but essentially you're arguing for a philosophy called relativism, the end of which is that there's nothing objectively right... On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    While I'd say I am in fact a moral relativist, I'd also say I'm not exactly arguing for it. As far as I can see, relativism is the agnosticism of morality - in the lack of evidence for an objective moral code, the only reasonable, logical position is relativism. On the other hand, I'm rather ignorant about the subject, so my opinion isn't to be taken very seriously. On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too. Sure, but I can still dislike it, which in practice means the same (essentially nothing, since my influence is zero ;)
dextorious 15y ago
"""When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. """ Actually, people weren't talking that much about Iran before --it's just because it happens to be the current target, so western media plays Iran a lot. It's also for the same reason why people DON'T talk about Saudi Arabia, which is 10 times worse in those aspects than Iran --but since it's an ally, it doesn't get played unfavorably much, if at all. Now, what are things that are "by any definition wrong"? Who gives the definition? Let's see your examples: """You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion.""" In the US 50 years ago there was prevalent racism against black people (heck, there were hotels/restaurants etc not accepting them as customers). Was that civilized? No. So, would another country be justified to say, bomb the US and topple the government to pass laws to change that? I say, no, the people of the US would have to do it themselves (as they eventually did). So, why should it be different for any other country? And who says that all countries should get to the same level of "civilization" at the same time? For example, besides abolishing slavery earlier, tons of countries had women voting much earlier than the US did. And tons of countries have abolished the death penalty already. You say "you simply cannot, in any modern society throw (a) stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion". And I say, that in modern societies like the one I live, you simply cannot execute anyone AT ALL, whatever he said or did. It's unacceptable. When is the US going to come around to this one? And how is stoning worse than the (horrible) electric chair or the (disgusting) gas chamber? Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation. I don't even care if they are cannibals in country X, let them do what the f... they want. No one should dictate how other societies should live.
- stdgy 15y ago
  While I agree with much of the sentiment expressed in your post, I must take issue with: Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation. Can a society really be said to 'want and believe in' something if the society isn't structured to allow for a reasonable form of self-government? We shouldn't be looking to protect sovereign nations. We should be looking to protect sovereign peoples. If a group is truly sovereign and self-governing, then their choices should be respected. Not incidentally, the requirements for a sovereign, self-governing people align closely with principles of human rights. I find it difficult to conclude that countries like Iran(rampant electoral fraud), North Korea(dictatorship) and Saudi Arabia are home to sovereign peoples. Sovereign nations, sure. But a border seems like a poor substitute to the collective wills of a people. And it's far from clear that these countries' actions are the expression of that will. I suppose a rebuke to this point would be to question whether any nation is truly governed by a sovereign people, or if this is merely another form of Western projection? But I think that would be a difficult argument.
calibraxis 15y ago
The US and UK overthrew Iran's democratically elected secular government, installing the Shah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%C3%A9tat) Us Anglo-Americans are in no moral position to judge Iranians (or anyone else really), since our governments are the cause of so many of their misfortunes. (Imagine if China one day did similar to the US; how far would we regress in terms of hard-won civil rights?) And we're still threatening and dominating them.
- pooriaazimi 15y ago
  Your link goes nowhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
ajays 15y ago
You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion. And yet the US is the strongest ally of the worst offenders in this regard, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Women can't vote or drive in Saudi Arabia; heck, they can't even go out alone, and can't go out with a male who is not a blood relative or husband. And oh, even when they go out in a car, they can't sit in the front.
- johnyzee 15y ago
  Not to mention that America electrocutes people to death, which may be slightly cleaner than a stoning but not exactly humanitarian.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

skeptical 15y ago

While I agree with you, your last paragraph is just non sense. What's specifically bad? Honestly, if you ask this question you're shouting out that you have no idea what today's iran (or most of the muslim countries) are like. Quite frankly, visit iran and see for yourself. A word of advice though: if you happen to be a woman, I would recommend taking my word for granted instead. Just my advice.

dextorious 15y ago
"""While I agree with you, your last paragraph is just non sense. What's specifically bad? Honestly, if you ask this question you're shouting out that you have no idea what today's iran (or most of the muslim countries) are like.""" You don't get to judge Iran as "bad in general" by your standards, though. You only get to judge Iran as "bad for you", by your standards. If you want to judge Iran as "bad in general", you'd have to also show that the people of Iran don't want to live like they do. Because if they DO want to live like they do (which I assure you it's the case in general), then there's nothing bad about Iran. They just live in a way that you happen to disagree with. They never came to tell you how to live YOUR life, though.
- skeptical 15y ago
  I'm sorry, if I'm Iranian myself does your reply still applies? Just wondering. I'm tired of this political correctness, it's so 90's. But it will take more than a couple of downvotes to shut me up. This "everybody has the right to their way of living" is getting old and stupid. Have you ever visited Iran? I find it interesting that when I talk about this subject with people from muslim countries, they understand me very well and mostly agree with me, while most westerns prefer to paint everything with fairy-tale colors and say that they are 'tolerant' to every culture. Anyway, your comment is almost semantically null. Why wouldn't it be obvious that anyone's judgement has whatever credibility you want to give it? Furthermore, By assuming that everything is subjective you're basically stating that you won't dare to stand for any opinion of yours.
  - dextorious 15y ago

dasil003 15y ago

On the one hand yeah America has its share of dirty laundry, no doubt about it. On the other hand, civil unrest in Iran is not just a couple hundred kids who want to live like westerners.

zalew 15y ago

> a few hundred idiots with tweeter accounts and blogs a few hundred?? rly? idiots??? http://vimeo.com/2232226 http://vimeo.com/2232226

dextorious 15y ago
I was talking about the showcases "celebrated" by the western media. And "http://vimeo.com/2232226 http://vimeo.com/2232226? Really? This is coarse-grained propaganda, if I ever saw one! As a commenter on Boing Boing says: """Yeah IMO stories like this one are useful in preparing the public's psych & emotions for the upcoming US "let's display bi-partisan foreign policy" demonstration...in other words, for Obama & his Secdef Gates' planned attack on Iran. Any secret special US Forces ops going on right now? Or are your "journalists" doing their "patriotic duty" by looking away, to enable another War? How do you distinguish between those Iranians it's OK for the USA to attack or maim or kill and those who aren't? Are only employees and civil servants of the State of Iran and those who actively oppose US control/diktaat over Iranian domestic policy "fair game"? Or is it only those Iranians who happen to live in Iran ? Or those opposed to the views of "freedom-loving" Iranians living in foreign exile? I think the USA/Western media should STFU about Iran, and and instead direct their efforts at getting NATO and the US Armed Forces to immediately stop killing Asians. This would show their humanitarianism, if not their usefulness....""" Designed to let the viewer with the impression that those blogs support toppling the government, changing their way of life etc. It basically uses the notion of having a blog as axiomatically meaning that. Have you read a lot of those actual blogs, not just the selected few celebrated in our media? http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/06/16/are-you-ready-for-war-with-a-demonized-iran/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/06/16/are-you-ready-for-war...
- zalew 15y ago
  > Have you read a lot of those actual blogs, not just the selected few celebrated in our media? I read books about Iran, watch Iranian cinema, and in a few days I'm hopefully getting my visa, so I couldn't care less about comments on boingboing or propaganda in American media, as my subject of interest exceeds their international affairs. But I know what's your point (from the previous post), and we probably share a common view on that, I was just a bit surprised you put a label on activism that they're idiots, just because mainstream media selectively presents only information targetted at idiots. And the video was just to illustrate the numbers of online activity from Iranians, nothing else.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ck2 15y ago

I did not exclude American conservative fundamentalists - they are indeed a plague on our society as they are ANYWHERE. ANYWHERE there is conservative fundamentalism it means people's freedom is being restricted. Gitmo, Patriot Act, SOPA - none of these came out of progressive thinking - they are throwbacks to conservative desires regardless who votes for them.

beagle3 15y ago

> What exactly is specifically bad about the Iranian government that other countries have not already did, including the US? Did you notice that Libya, Tunisia and Egypt already had a popular revolution, and that Syria is still having one? Would you have said, 12 months ago, that the majority of Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans WANT to live like they do, and RESPECT their country's ideals? If not, why not? and why is Iran different? If so -- then, 12 months later, when you have proof positive that it wasn't the case 12 months earlier -- why do you think Iran is different (except in the sense that the popular green revolution has not succeeded)

dextorious 15y ago
"""Did you notice that Libya, Tunisia and Egypt already had a popular revolution, and that Syria is still having one? Would you have said, 12 months ago, that the majority of Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans WANT to live like they do, and RESPECT their country's ideals?""" Not only I noticed, but I live near those parts of the world, have friends there, and know that what you seem to believe about those countries has nothing to do with the reality. The popular revolutions did not happen because they wanted to be more like americans, or because they rejected islam or whatever. The western media just overplayed some guys on twitter and similar figures that have little to do with the actual struggle, as if they represent the will of the people. The western governments also overplay their people there, like politicians with 10% of the vote and such. Students, another group that was also overplayed, was a tiny minority in those revolting. And yet, people draw conclusions and pretend to know all about the politics and tensions of those areas from news articles spoon fed to them. This is similar to some foreign news source showing, say, Glenn Beck and assuring his audience that "all americans think like that". There have been power struggles and political antagonisms for thousands of years, in all parts of the world. When one happens to happen to a country that the us doesn't like, it doesn't mean that the people doing it suddenly decided to adopt a different way of living. It just means that they don't like dictators (or even that they just don't like their current dictator), period. Also, while the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia where genuine, the revolts in Libya where mostly BS, as the population could care less about Khadaffi's rule. Unlike the other revolts, this only succeeded because of heavy backing, military and otherwise, from the west, interested in the oil. And it's not like things are going to turn for the better there (or even in Egypt and Tunisia, if the interested foreign powers are going to have their way), most probaly they will turn into something like Iraq, substituting a dictatorship with livable conditions and stability to a nightmare of civil war, ethnic cleansing, foreign exploitation, and EVEN MORE islamic fundamendalism etc...

mseebach 15y ago

> millions of Iranian/whatever people that WANT to live like they do It is really not an unreasonable assumption that the population living under a totalitarian regime, does, in fact, not want to. > What exactly is specifically bad about the Iranian government that other countries have not already did, including the US? The rule of law. The rest amounts to rounding errors.