Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

I don't know how close you guys are following this, but it seems like it's gotten really bad over there. The police have tried to suppress the protests and many people have died. And it looks like it can only get worse. Look at Mousavi's Twitter Page.

I translated some of it, and he called for people to go on strike if they put him in jail... he also says that he's prepared for martyrdom.

I consider myself a liberal, but I have many different opposing opinions about this. For one, I think that an oppressive government should be overthrown, but I hate the idea of so much violence. I also would like the US to support the revolution, but I think that Obama is right not to, since us meddling has hurt us in the past, and it would hurt us here. What do you guys think about this horrible crisis?

Edit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgVGfCTjC2I

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 20th June 2009 22:09

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Well what had lead to the revolution in the first place was President Carter's nonaction in Iran, leaving the Shah out to dry and vulnerable to the Ayatollah.
However, it may not even be necessary for US involvement, if Mousavi gets enough support in the country, and he does call an all-out strike.

If the 'disturbances' last too much longer (ie a week) I believe Obama should intervene. If he doesn't, this has the potential to be another Tienamen Square, when it could in fact be like the breaking of the Berlin Wall. Either way, some change is definately gonna happen in Iran.

--------------------

I fear my heart and fear my soul
Life goes on, it surely will,
Without me and I wonder:
Will I ever see light again?

Life goes on...

US Intervention would be the worst thing for everyone. It would inflame the radicals and draw support in from the rest of the Extremists of the world. Leave this to an internal matter, for if Iran clears it up without a massacre... fine. If it's a bloodbath, the world will condemn Iran. Some will condemn the US for not going in, but those are the same people who'd be up in arms if they had gone in. If you truly wish to see a democratic outcome, it's got to emerge from Iran and without any outside influences. Even if the US only intervenes and is there for a week, the repercussions will last for years. Obama has given the US a little bit of diplomatic breathing room for now. Start a police action, and we're back in 2003 all over again.

Now, the US has been criticised for not going into places in the past, like Rwanda, but they'd had a complete arse-up in Somalia very recently before it, and the same government that had been loathe to let the DoD get the job done properly was more concerned about their image at home than the fact it was a genocide. But Iran is different. If there is widespread and continuous violence, it's a revolution, and whatever side the US joins, the other is instantly tainted as far as the nutters like Al-Qaeda and Company care. The violence will go along ethnic lines at some point, it almost always does, but it won't be Rwanda just as Iraq wasn't Somalia. Both of them might have been miserable failures in the long run but in Iraq, the US stayed the course to try and fix the country they crippled. In Somalia, they pulled out because Washington balked at the casualties, and made their deaths meaningless as a result.

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

If there is one thing I've learned from living in other countries, it's that the US needs to learn a lesson in taking care of its own first. Iran needs to handle itself. We enough trouble of our own right now, and I think the last thing we need to do is get involved in all this. If Iran's people want democracy then they will have to stand up for it. It won't do them any good (or us for that matter) to fight for them and spend money we don't have doing something they probably won't truly appreciate in the long run.

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

The United States is not the world's police agency, however much some people think it is or would like it to be. If anything, one should be discussing the possibility of United Nations intervention, not United States. That being said, it's a shitty situation over there. Though North Korea is scaring me a lot more right now. It was such a wonderful idea to waste the past six years in Iraq while an ACTUAL madman built ACTUAL nuclear weapons with which to threaten the world. Thanks, Bush.

Quote (Reod Dai @ 22nd June 2009 23:47)

The United States is not the world's police agency, however much some people think it is or would like it to be. If anything, one should be discussing the possibility of United Nations intervention, not United States.

Well, it is in a way. The US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

That sentiment is based on a long-standing idea of imperialism. The idea is that, because we are superior militarily and economically, we can govern the rest of the world. It is not an idea unique to the US really; the British Empire was the same way, and so was the Roman Empire. They exploited weaker and indigenous people.

I think that that feeling of self-righteous imperialism is not necessarily wrong, because the people in Iran deserve certain human rights, but Iran is another country with a different government and culture. We must stay out of the crisis, unless if it gets too bad. Like I said, I'm really conflicted about it, because I agree with you that the US shouldn't be the world's police, but it will hurt us if we get involved.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote

Well what had lead to the revolution in the first place was President Carter's nonaction in Iran, leaving the Shah out to dry and vulnerable to the Ayatollah.

I'm gonna go out and say wrong. What led to the revolution in the first place was the U.S. propping up an unpopular, worthless dictator. The Shah was to Iran as Batista was to Cuba.

I completely agree with Del. When the US becomes involved, everything always gets complicated. We infuriate the locals to turn against their own cause in order to repel foreign interest. Self rule always unites a people, as it is the vital first step in the process to arriving at a successful, democratic government.

The Iranian people should revolt. Those who die to so for the noblest of causes: does "Give me liberty or give me death!" ring any bells? But it is THEIR cause to revolt on: thus, it is their struggle.

As for the UN, it's worthless. 1) It can't do anything. 2) If it does, it is actually just US troops/officials serving under the UN banner. 3) Hello, major constitutional violation here! Why are we even members? It may be different if the UN actually solved problems, but it has never actually served any useful purpose.

An invasion would lead to awful repricusions. We loose good American men and women, we deprive troops from our other battlegrounds, and we get bogged down for years in the process of nation-building and terrorist-cleansing.

--------------------

Currently Playing : Final Fantasy V
Most Recently Beat : Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Favorite Game : Final Fantasy X

The newest CoNcast is up! Have a listen!

Quote (Death Penalty @ 22nd June 2009 21:07)

Quote

Well what had lead to the revolution in the first place was President Carter's nonaction in Iran, leaving the Shah out to dry and vulnerable to the Ayatollah.

I'm gonna go out and say wrong. What led to the revolution in the first place was the U.S. propping up an unpopular, worthless dictator. The Shah was to Iran as Batista was to Cuba.

And what would you consider Khomeni? Under the Shah, Iran enjoyed a degree of freedom, though the Westernization ruffled a number of feathers. When Iran needed the US the most was when the ayatollahs were threatening the revolution. When Carter pulled out, they took the chance to strike at the vulnerable governent and took over. And of course the Iranian people have been so satisfied with the regime ever since, correct? The compasin to Batista is a fair one, though, though I wouldn't say Castro has been quite as oppressive as the Ayatollah.

I know I phrased that wrong. I don't believe we should charge headlong into Iran. I believe that should it seem necessary, we should intervene, as in if the protests look be coming to a violent end. That's personal opininon of course. I also have friends and relatives in the military (particularly the Marines) on the frontline who are ready and willing to head into Iran (and/or Korea) if it is necessary to preserve freedom there. Maybe that's where the personal bias comes in.

--------------------

I fear my heart and fear my soul
Life goes on, it surely will,
Without me and I wonder:
Will I ever see light again?

Life goes on...

Quote (Sherick @ 23rd June 2009 02:26)

I also have friends and relatives in the military (particularly the Marines) on the frontline who are ready and willing to head into Iran (and/or Korea) if it is necessary to preserve freedom there. Maybe that's where the personal bias comes in.

The point is that itis their country, their freedom, and our meddling would make things worse and hurt us.

Iran is not the "former Republic of Texas" or "Tennessee." Our respective states are different, but we are apart of the same government. They have nothing to do with us. They aren't even an ally.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

U.S. military involvement is a certain bad move. We've already covered my main reasons why, so I'll just add a little extra.

First of all, why would Mousavi be any different from Ahmadinejad? According to the BBC he took a harder line on some issues during the TV debates. I believe that he's a pragmatist, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't understand why he's so endeared as an agent of freedom and reform.

I also don't think an attitude of 'they should have what we have' is a very good stance to take. There are flaws in democracy all around the world, Iran just hasn't successfully hidden their's. In the West, since elections are based on trustee representation and popular consent, they might as well be rigged for all the good that one cross on a ballot paper does. We just like the theory of democracy, that the political elite is at the mercy of a perceptive and sagacious electorate, who could potentially oust the ruling party if we wanted to with our freedoms of speech and association. In practise, however, this is not at all true, we're just numbers. What would imposing this on Iran really achieve?

I wonder what would've happened if there was a similar backlash from the American 2000 presidential election. Wouldn't Bush have acted in a very similar way to Khamenei, in the interest of unity and order? That is, if the indignant portion of the electorate had actually put up any kind of real resistance to what they had seen as a flawed election other than voicing their concerns and watching a failed legal battle... see my above paragraph.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Well, that would probably not have happened here, even for the 2000 election. In fact, that actually shows you that a democratic system can work very well, because the election of Obama and a Democrat Congress is really backlash for the eight years of George Bush and his administration's policies and ideologies; it was a revolution in the sense that the people spoke and changed the party in power.

The reason there is so much violence in Iran is that they have an oppressive government and society. I am not saying we are better, I am just speaking the truth. I think that's why people are really protesting over there. Oppression leads to dissent.

I agree that democracies are just as easily corrupted, I do however agree with the theories of John Locke used in our Declaration of Independence. Government is a social contract between the people, and the people are the source of power.

When you think about it, politicians have to do what we want, because they want our vote and support. Because if they don't have it, then they won't stay in power.

Going back to the subject, if Iran's government is oppressive, then it will change. If not now, then sometime in the future. You can compare it to something like slavery in the US. It was wrong, and even though people still supported it and it took aong time to change, it did change. If the Ayatollah puts down this revolution, then the next one will be even stronger.

As for us, we can only spur more anti-American sentiments, and continue the same ideology that the majority (including myself) voted against.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote

And what would you consider Khomeni? Under the Shah, Iran enjoyed a degree of freedom, though the Westernization ruffled a number of feathers. When Iran needed the US the most was when the ayatollahs were threatening the revolution. When Carter pulled out, they took the chance to strike at the vulnerable governent and took over. And of course the Iranian people have been so satisfied with the regime ever since, correct? The compasin to Batista is a fair one, though, though I wouldn't say Castro has been quite as oppressive as the Ayatollah.

I see your point, but I think we'd be best off if our government never supported any foreign ruler who isn't elected and who doesn't rule through democratic process. Because that just makes us look bad in the end when he is overthrown.
I do wonder though what would have happened if we would have seized that opportunity. We could have done a lot of good, but we could have gotten ourselves a big liability (Iraq, anyone?).

--------------------

Currently Playing : Final Fantasy V
Most Recently Beat : Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Favorite Game : Final Fantasy X

The newest CoNcast is up! Have a listen!

I'd just like to say that politics is unequivocally my favourite topic of conversation.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 23rd June 2009 18:31)

Well, that would probably not have happened here, even for the 2000 election. In fact, that actually shows you that a democratic system can work very well, because the election of Obama and a Democrat Congress is really backlash for the eight years of George Bush and his administration's policies and ideologies; it was a revolution in the sense that the people spoke and changed the party in power.

If you equate democracy with swapping one party for the one other option every eight years (usually) if they happen to be unpopular at that time, then yes, it does work. If, however, you equate democracy to every person's power over their life and liberty then, no, our respective systems do not. It's certainly a step in the right direction, but it's not something that we should be trying to force onto the Iranians. Equal rights for women and oil revenues paid into public services is, however, a much better cause to protest for. I wish them all the best.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 23rd June 2009 18:31)

I agree that democracies are just as easily corrupted, I do however agree with the theories of John Locke used in our Declaration of Independence. Government is a social contract between the people, and the people are the source of power.

I like Locke as well, but Marx is his natural successor on liberty in my opinion; more realistic and less outdated. Governments may agree with Locke and Mill in principle, but only to a certain extent in practice. The founders of the American democracy themselves were worried about 'mob rule', and therefore limited the power of individuals to the extent that they could only elect an elite selection of representatives. Locke was an abolishionist, which certainly shows some distance between his thinking and that of Washington et al.

Regardless of all the above, I completely agree with Engels and Marx in their theory of a dominant capitalist class. Basically government is not the only centre of power, so it doesn't even entirely matter what happens to it. The real power is in the hands of top directors and the most wealthy investors. Look at Bush's action on the banking disaster. Rather than following his Republican economic liberal agenda he's been preaching for the past while, he decided to effectively nationalise the failed banks, then dictate to the taxpayer that a capitalist economy needs these banks to survive. It's complete fantasy. The Federal Reserve should have paid that money directly into businesses and individuals at an interest rate of 0.1%. My point is that we can argue about democracy in government all we like but there is no economic democracy, which renders it somewhat pointless. People power is extremely lacking as the majority of people have no say in the effective running of their workplace, no real share in the profits that they generate, and their finances are controlled via a structure of banking which has developed as the backbone of society but controlled by an unelected elite. When it comes to lawmaking, they have a massive influence over the policy of government regardless of the ideology of that government; Bush is the prime example.

To sweep back to Iran, they have an opportunity to make a better society. I'll repeat myself: they shouldn't look to us for too much guidance, and by what I've read they aren't!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 23rd June 2009 18:31)

When you think about it, politicians have to do what we want, because they want our vote and support. Because if they don't have it, then they won't stay in power.

That's a narrow way of looking at it. They are elected on no mandate and therefore are entrusted with doing what's in their constituency's interest. Look, I'm not saying all politicians are bad, but their interests can be different than the interests of those who elected them; that's without even mentioning those who didn't elect them. Also, some representatives or parties are always elected in certain areas without any contest. It completely defeats the point of consensual government.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 23rd June 2009 18:31)

Going back to the subject, if Iran's government is oppressive, then it will change. If not now, then sometime in the future. You can compare it to something like slavery in the US. It was wrong, and even though people still supported it and it took aong time to change, it did change. If the Ayatollah puts down this revolution, then the next one will be even stronger.

Yes possibly. I don't expect Khamenei to be ousted by the protesters or his subordinates. If, however, there is this high-level division which the BBC seems to be encouraging us to believe, then that could be potentially fatal to his rule.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 24th June 2009 10:47)

If you equate democracy with swapping one party for the one other option every eight years (usually) if they happen to be unpopular at that time, then yes, it does work. If, however, you equate democracy to every person's power over their life and liberty then, no, our respective systems do not. It's certainly a step in the right direction, but it's not something that we should be trying to force onto the Iranians. Equal rights for women and oil revenues paid into public services is, however, a much better cause to protest for. I wish them all the best.

What I was talking about is the Right to Revolution, a right which both of our countries have used in the past (the American Revolution and the Glorious Revolution). Our systems are not perfect, but they give more power to the people. At one time, kings ruled through divine right, and we as colonies were not represented properly. Revolutions will happen, but our systems have devised a way of allowing them to be peaceful, for the most part, and civilized. Iran’s government apparently is not set up that way.

Quote (sweetdude)

I like Locke as well, but Marx is his natural successor on liberty in my opinion; more realistic and less outdated. Governments may agree with Locke and Mill in principle, but only to a certain extent in practice.

Locke’s theory of the social contract is outdated? It is the basis for modern democracy, the idea that the power is in the hands of the people. Marx’s name is more well-known because of his connection to socialism and communism, but Locke’s theories are prevalent in both of our governments and all modern democracies. But Locke’s social contract theory is a governmental theory, and Marx’s is mainly an economic theory, but his theory applies to Marx’s. He argued that workers would rebel, which was true, because those workers had a social contract with how their government operated. Because of the right to revolution, people can choose as a whole capitalism or socialism, and the Iranians will choose whatever they choose, if their revolution is successful.

I do agree, however, with their theory that there is a centralized economic power. When they bailed out AIG, they stated that it was "too big to fail." That seems very wrong in my opinion, it seems like a monopoly on wealth.

Quote (sweetdude)

That's a narrow way of looking at it. They are elected on no mandate and therefore are entrusted with doing what's in their constituency's interest. Look, I'm not saying all politicians are bad, but their interests can be different than the interests of those who elected them; that's without even mentioning those who didn't elect them. Also, some representatives or parties are always elected in certain areas without any contest. It completely defeats the point of consensual government.

Well, I live in one of those areas. Tennessee is a heavy red state, so my “blue” vote didn’t count very much. I’m not arguing that they will do what we want if we elect them, and I am not saying that all people are smart enough to be politically intellectual. Going back to Bush’s eight-year reign term, many people criticized his point-of-view, and his support dwindled. Obama came along, and his agenda seemed to be different. Now, none of us know what he will do in office, if he will did what he promised, but if he does then his supporters will be happy and his critics will be few. But if he does not, and his policies and agenda do not work, then his support will dwindle as well and he and his party will be voted out. A president must have the majority’s support to be elected.

And politicians aren’t necessarily bad, they are just about being elected, or power, if you want to say that. They have self interests, and they b.s. with the best of them, but I expect nothing more from them. I am not one of those people that prays to Obama and the Democrats. They were elected by average people, and politicians are only as good as who elects them.

Quote (sweetdude)

I'd just like to say that politics is unequivocally my favourite topic of conversation.

I'd have to say that it's one of mine as well.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 24th June 2009 21:04)

Locke’s theory of the social contract is outdated? It is the basis for modern democracy, the idea that the power is in the hands of the people. Marx’s name is more well-known because of his connection to socialism and communism, but Locke’s theories are prevalent in both of our governments and all modern democracies. But Locke’s social contract theory is a governmental theory, and Marx’s is mainly an economic theory, but his theory applies to Marx’s. He argued that workers would rebel, which was true, because those workers had a social contract with how their government operated. Because of the right to revolution, people can choose as a whole capitalism or socialism

Locke was about a lot more than the social contract. His entire view of human nature and individuality is outdated, I believe, but the idea of consensual obedience to law is certainly not. The problem is that Locke's time and ours are so very different regarding power and politics. Marx's world is not greatly different to 2009. Yes, Marx is a critic of economics and capitalism, but that is similar to Locke because he's still commenting on all the same subjects, only from a modern perspective of power. Also, I'd say today's governments draw more from Mill's work than Locke, overall. Two Treatises is still good to read but only from an archaic point of view.

Quote (BlitzSage 24th June 2009 21:04)

Revolutions will happen, but our systems have devised a way of allowing them to be peaceful, for the most part, and civilized. Iran’s government apparently is not set up that way.

That's just conformity. Peaceful evolution or revolution is much better than violence, but it's gone too far now and become apathy with very little change, or a swinging change which doesn't seem to progress. So many people just don't care enough. I don't blame anyone, I find a lot of politicians extremely boring. 'I am not saying that all people are smart enough to be politically intellectual' is wrong. Anyone can be powerful, the question is 'who's holding them back?' I don't completely agree that revolutions can happen in our society. The way it's engineered favours evolutionary change.

On your other point, unfortunately the Iranian government has shown its true colours this week. Until now it has presented itself as a powerful authority ruling in the interest of the Iranian people, appearing civilised and democratic. It is only now after the killings and the beatings that they've become blatantly evil. Some of the videos and pictures I've seen have been extremely upsetting. It's a real tragedy. Until now I haven't really seen it as a 'crisis', this week has changed my opinion. It's a sure change for the worse, but could it galvanise the opposition into more militant action? The protests are now less about the election and more about the future of the country.

I read someone explaining that Egypt had exactly the same problem some time ago, but the media practically ignored it. As far as I remember, they wanted to bring in an Islamic republic, not chuck it out. Maybe that was the problem.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (Death Penalty)

As for the UN, it's worthless. 1) It can't do anything. 2) If it does, it is actually just US troops/officials serving under the UN banner. 3) Hello, major constitutional violation here! Why are we even members? It may be different if the UN actually solved problems, but it has never actually served any useful purpose.

And it's that kind of attitude that undermines the UN. As long as people, particularly our leaders (such as Bush with the invasion of Iraq) have that "to hell with the UN' attitude, then yes, its effectiveness will be undermined. It has its failings, but those mostly stem from the failings of member nations, namely the desire to do whatever the hell they feel like while ignoring the UN. To say that the UN has never helped solve problems and that it serves no purpose is completely ridiculous. At the very least, it provides a venue for international dialogue, whether that dialogue actually achieves anything or not (and it often does). Are you really trying to say, for example, that the World Health Organization and the World Food Programme haven't done anything useful? And there's a reason that the UN Peacekeeping force recieved the Nobel Peace Prize. True, they're made up of forces from member nations, but to say that only the US helps provide those forces is also ridiculous.

This is getting a little off topic, but really, I feel the need to provide an example or two. Although quoting from Wikipedia isn't quite kosher for research purposes, it'll do for this.

• A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases at peace.[21] Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activism — mostly spearheaded by the UN — has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict since the end of the Cold War.[22] Situations where the UN has not only acted to keep the peace but also occasionally intervened include the Korean War (1950-1953), and the authorization of intervention in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in 1990.
  
  
  
• The UN and its agencies are central in upholding and implementing the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A case in point is support by the UN for countries in transition to democracy. Technical assistance in providing free and fair elections, improving judicial structures, drafting constitutions, training human rights officials, and transforming armed movements into political parties have contributed significantly to democratization worldwide. The UN has helped run elections in countries with little or no democratic history, including recently in Afghanistan and East Timor. The UN is also a forum to support the right of women to participate fully in the political, economic, and social life of their countries.
  
  
  
• The UN Development Programme (UNDP) is the largest multilateral source of grant technical assistance in the world. Organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria are leading institutions in the battle against diseases around the world, especially in poor countries.
  
  
  
  

But like I said, all of this is getting away from the point. The point I was trying to make is that what is going on in Iran is a matter of international concern, not just US concern, and that it's extremely arrogant to speak only of the possibility of US intervention. The UN isn't ideal, but it's far better than individual nations acting on their own and in their own self-interest like we did with Iraq. That is not to say that I'm advocating any sort of intervention; I'm not. All I'm doing is pointing out the arrogance of singling out the United States in discussing possible intervention.

Quote (sweedude)

First of all, why would Mousavi be any different from Ahmadinejad? According to the BBC he took a harder line on some issues during the TV debates. I believe that he's a pragmatist, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't understand why he's so endeared as an agent of freedom and reform.

It's my understanding that the issue, at least for the Iranian people, is no longer simply this election but regime change in general.

This post has been edited by Reod Dai on 24th June 2009 22:31

Quote (sweetdude @ 24th June 2009 21:25)

Locke was about a lot more than the social contract. His entire view of human nature and individuality is outdated, I believe, but the idea of consensual obedience to law is certainly not. The problem is that Locke's time and ours are so very different regarding power and politics.

His times are not so different. Human nature has not changed. Our society has, but we have not. As for his theories being outdated or not, you may be right. But his influence has not stopped. He influenced many people of his time, including Jefferson, (who actually stole his line "Life, Liberty, and Property"). While philosophy has itself evolved since him, there is no doubt that many of his theories made an impact, (especially the ones on government which are actually pertinent to this discussion). Edison is an influential inventor. He didn't invent the first lightbulb, and we don't use his version today, but his advancement of the process was highly influential. Moreover, still more influential was Ben Franklin's harnessing of electricity. The point being that his theories are not outdated, they have simply evolved with the work of others, and his work is but a stepping stone.

But this argument is futile, and very off point. I go by the simple philosophical theory: "It is what it is." It's only archaic if it's useless. What I'm saying is, if Queen Elizabeth took back power, claiming divine right tomorrow, you would probably be invoking Locke's name, not Marx's. However, if you were a member of the repressed working class, you would be waiting for his revolution to take place. It is what it is.

It doesn't matter which philosophical theory is pertinent, it matters that their government is supressing their rights, and very well rigged an election. They gotta do what they gotta do to insure their safety, even if it is placing theirselves in harm's way to insure their freedoms and values.

And I think of revolutions in the simplest form of the word: change. Through creating different scientific, political, social, and philosophical theories, and communicating through our language and our art, we can better our society.

Edit

I hate arguing on these things, because we can't see each other, and everything looks like I'm trying to pick a fight, but I'm not. I'm just stating my view. You all can take this as a long digression. Sorry.

But back to the point, I figured that it would make a turn for the worst, and sadly it did.

But I don't get people who are pessimistic about things (generally, not you). If you try hard, you can see a positive outcome of this. To be pessimistic myself, it won't be in the near future for certain, but the Iranian people have shown dissent with their government, an intent to change or revolutionize their country, and the resolve to keep pressing for that change even through such odds. Even if this crisis ends as a crisis instead of a triumph, there is always hope for the future. To me, and this is just me, it it only right to feel that way.

And I agree with you, Reod Dai, about the UN's importance. I told someone the other day, that it is not a world government, but a "world alliance." There is not some conspiracy to undermine the US's power (which, being from Tennessee, I know people actually believe that), it is a system where countries help each other. And in my opinion, the UN as a whole should step in. Since Iran is a member of the United Nations, and a founding member at that, they should live up to the UN's standards.

But the US, or any country individually, does not have any rights to do so.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!