posted
I've got a pretty good working knowledge of Farsi, and have been boning up on Persian history and Iranian current events for a couple of years now. I enjoyed listening to the Tehranis talk, and the subject matter was really interesting.
I wish he would have asked the three women he focused on whether or not they were single (I'd bet a lot that they were), because I have a hard time believing that the average Iranian male could deal with having a successful wife. Equality my left hand.
The fact remains, the regime is extremely dangerous, repressive, and not at all reflective of the people that prop it up. This did nothing to change my mind.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that I think is worth paying attention to is how the country has been modernizing and liberalising over the years. A common argument that I've heard is that our pressure on Iran only bolsters the conservatives in that country. Give Iran time, leave it alone, give Iran breathing room and the market and democracy will 'take care of' Iran.
This isn't to say that they aren't a threat because the 'old guard' *is* in power, or that there aren't repressive elements in the society, or that these elements aren't a threat to, say, Israel.
On the other hand, it's vital that we acknowledge that they are not the sum total of Iran.
Iran hates us with good reason. They are dangerous in large part because we made them that way. This doesn't excuse them doing bad things and being the aggressor any more than it excuses us, but it is a fact.
I think it's also a fact that we can play a part in peace with them and helping them to liberalize and modernize.
To me, I think it goes without saying that actually calling 'Iran' out by calling the whole country an 'axis of evil' isn't productive in any way, shape or form, and is just political grandstanding at its worst. I can't think of an organization on the planet that would actually take two seconds listening to someone who called them 'evil'. Mormons? Evil! Military? Evil! Christians? Evil! Yeah, now diplomacy is really going to go forward.
Finally, one point that I hope this movie underlines is that, whatever happens with Iran, they're human beings. They're not evil or defined by the country they happen to live in. They're not, for the most part, 'orcs'.
I firmly believe that while military power might be needed, and we should be prepared, this needs to be a last, last, last resort, as nothing will set back the liberalization of Iranian society, destabilize the region, and destroy any hope for freedom and democracy like us declaring war on them.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's also a fact that we can play a part in peace with them and helping them to liberalize and modernize.
In many ways, I think "helping them to liberalize and modernize" is one of the reasons they fight us in the first place, they see us as wanting to impose our morality and our religion on their Muslim brethren. I dont think thats a product of liberalism in general, its also a product of conservative pundits who make liberal into exactly what the Islamic extremist hates, but there is a clear perception in the Muslim world that we want to impose our beliefs and modern technologies on them. Hence, I am not sure the best way to come to peace with Iran is to modernize and liberalize them...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting that you perceive what I'm saying is that liberalism is to be imposed on Islam, 'their Muslim brethren'. I think the documentary is pretty clear that the Iranians themselves want to liberalize, that they themselves want modern cars, computers, what have you. If this is what many Iranians want, who is preventing them from having these things? Us? Who forces whose values on those people who don't want what the state wants? Us?
I don't think so.
Liberalism in the sense that I'm using it isn't about forcing anything on anyone, it's about getting along with your fellow neighbor. You do your thing, they do theirs. Where is the imposition? If you don't want to do as they do, don't. If you do, do. Where is the imposition?
It seems to me that just getting along with your neighbors, living in peace with them as much as possible, is in no way 'imposition' in any meaning of the word. To say that it is strikes me as positively Orwellian, a twisting of the word 'imposition' to mean the opposite of what it means.
If you read my last post, I hope it's clear that in large part I'm saying that we should back off Iran and leave them in peace as much as possible. I don't think this is imposing. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If this is what many Iranians want, who is preventing them from having these things? Us? Who forces whose values on those people who don't want what the state wants? Us?
The other Iranians in the country? No, I hear you Storm Saxon, my only point is that Islamic extremists see the liberalization and modernization of the middle east as an affront to Islam itself, and thats the basis of their jihad against America and the infidels. Its interesting, if you listened to Bin Laden before 9/11, his argument had to hinge on one thing, it hinged on the notion that we were all atheist pagans seeking to strip Islam from those around the world, and forcing our capitalist economic system into practice in the Middle East. The Qu'ran maintains that they must employ all means to repel infidels in war, but Islam itself has no problem with Christianity or Judaism, and historically that has been the case. When you fight a jihad against America then, what the argument is based on is the idea that we want to "liberalize" (and in this case, they take liberalize to mean atheist pagans who want to impose their type of morality free of the Qu'ran and free of Islam itself) the Middle East, we want to "modernize" the Middle East and bring our atheist and pagan entertainment ideas to corrupt the youth away from Islam, and its clear that throughout the Middle East the technological age of the region is well behind ours and Europe's.
I am not saying thats right and I am not saying that they shouldnt liberalize or modernize, what I am saying is that they fight against that very notion, but more than that, Iran is a country of hard-liners, Clerics who take firm stances on Islamic theory and fundamentally oppose the ideas of American entertainment, morality, and technology because they fly in the face of Islam. These are Clerics who wont give up power and Clerics who will fight the liberalization and modernization of Iran, they are those with power who will not easily divorce themselves of that fundamental power that Extreme Islam provides them, but more than that, they hate us and their followers more than likely outnumber those who make you think that they want to liberalize and modernize (in Democracy, sometimes views that are wrong win--thats just the way it is--which means that a true democracy could choose to be communist or extreme Islamic). To bring down Iran, you aren't going to do it by exciting revolt, you arent going to do it by helping them be more "American", you are going to have to do it by taking out those clerics and HOPING that the people will follow you and not Bin Laden. Just saying...
ETA: Think of it this way, extreme conservatism in America and Islamic extremism have more in common than they like to admit, extreme conservatism sees a threat to America in liberalism, they claim that liberals are eroding the values of America, that they are pulling us further and further from Christianity, and the scourge on America today is the liberal agenda that wants women to have abortions and wants to protects criminals. And its amazing, if you stand next to an Islamic terrorist, they pretty much say the same thing about liberal, academic, atheist, America. The only difference is that extreme conservatism employs political terror instead of actual and physical terror, they dont blow up buses, they make it so that liberal equals bad. So when a liberal runs for office its automatically the case that the liberal wants your kids to be godless and immoral, and the same goes for Islamic extremism except that all of America seeks to impose these views on the Islamic world. In many ways, its a product of the technological revolution, the Middle East is a haven for Islamic Extremism because they are poor an ill-educated, but more than that, they are far behind most of the world in technological advancements and growth in other areas. They see America as trying to impose our beliefs on them because they are "backward" and wrong, because they are Muslim, and because we want to fix them through views and ideals that they dont share. And whether liberalization means what it does to you or them, Bin Laden is going to stand up and point to us and say "see, the dirty American infidels are coming for you and your children and we are the ones who can protect you". After 9/11, I guarantee that Bin Laden did a happy dance when we attacked Afghanistan, he wanted it to happen after the U.S.S Cole because what he wants to do is to be able to stand up and say that. He wants to do exactly what extreme conservatism does, he wants to make liberal into something inherently bad no matter what, and that he is the one who can stand up and stop this scourge from taking Muslim children and Muslims around the world.
And what really gets me is that inherently, liberalism and conservatism arent necessarily bad things, its only when you pervert it to an extreme that it becomes more than what it should. The same goes with Islam too...
posted
I can't respond to your post right now, Humean. I just wanted to let you know that I saw it, and thought it was an excellent one, and that I appreciated you taking the time to write it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The only difference is that extreme conservatism employs political terror"
Give me examples please? I would much rather have political "terror" than actual physical terror. To compare the two is outrageous.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Give me examples please? I would much rather have political "terror" than actual physical terror. To compare the two is outrageous.
Not really, both have the same goals, both maintain a sense that to accomplish the end-game they must scare or create terror in those they fight, and to me, the only difference is the manner in which they seek to accomplish their goals. We talk all the time about political terror, whether its Cheney saying that if we elect John Kerry the terrorists will kill us or Falwell saying that the reason 9/11 occurred was because of the feminists and homosexuals (with the implicit implication being that if we didnt do those things, we wouldnt die--thats political terror) or a concerted effort by the Bush administration to silence critics by revealing the names of CIA agents (again its more the warning, the idea that if you disagree with us, we will fire you, ruin you, or discredit you), the politics of fear and terror pervade our culture. In the end, it's the same as physical terror, both seek to create terror in order to accomplish a set of goals, the only difference being that physical terrorists blow up buses.
Oh and thanks Storm Saxon.
ETA: Its not like this is only a product of conservative politics only, and I dont mean to imply that. Its the politics of the liberal as well, its just that these days its easier to come up with conservative examples...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
