Blogging in Iran Takes Courage

netbuzz writes "This morning's Boston Globe has a thought-provoking profile of Iranian bloggers who are risking everything, quite literally, to bring a modicum of openness and truth to a society where the former is not tolerated and the latter strictly defined by government/religious authorities."

Comments

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[GreyPoopon]

Anything that is not favored by another is deemed to be "unamerican".

The difference being, of course, that the Dixie Chicks were not put to death for expressing views not in line with those of the government, and the consequences they endured were not handed out by the government, but rather their own fans.

Re:Can we send some of our muslims over there?

[DittoBox]

Is there a Christian equivalent country where we can send our fundies?

Middle-America?

Fucking grow up.

[s20451]

Human Rights Watch Iran
Amnesty International Iran

Take your jaded world weariness and shove it up your ass. The USA has problems, but comparing it to Iran with a smirk and a shrug is the opposite of helpful.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Wellington Grey]

You forgot a link or two.

-Grey

Re:Fucking grow up.

[HappySqurriel]

How often does the Government of the United States of America execute Journalists for speaking out against the government? How many citizens have been executed without due-process?

Currenly, every western democracy has problems but in comparison to countries like Iran their problems are nonexistent.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[feed_me_cereal]

yeah, cause they waive their terrorist-detector over all the detainees first to make sure they're terrorists before they torture them. Oh! and the ends have certainly justified the means, haven't they! I mean, we're all so much freer and safer, and Iraq is a beautiful paradise! Hey, why don't you book your next vacation for Baghdad, we could use a few less blathering idiots voting in the states.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...

It seems to me that this is an article about Iran, not the US. The US gets plenty of criticism in articles about its policies, but to criticize the US in an article about Iran speaks only about trying to justify worse abuses by comparison. It seems you are the one who is blind. You see any international story about abuse and use it as your soapbox against US policies. But by doing so you ignore the abuses the story was about.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Darth]

He didn't forget those links. They just aren't relevant.

Nothing in either of those links has anything to do with exercising freedom of speech in the United States or Iran. To claim the United States has a free speech record as bad as Iran based on those links would be like accusing someone of murder based on the fact that they stole a car once (obligatory slashdot car analogy).

Is there a reason you bring it up other than to prop up emotional rhetoric with an irrelevant appeal to emotion?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[vertinox]

The USA has problems, but comparing it to Iran with a smirk and a shrug is the opposite of helpful.

Oh least we forget who put the Shah in power. So indirectly, our Government... Which is supposedly in the hands of the US people... Installed a dictator who was terrible enough for a people to wish a revolution that replaced him with a theocratic leadership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

So yeah. At home we aren't as bad as Iran, but we had a great big hand in causing them to turn into the country they are today. I suppose I could get into the issue of the Iran/Iraq war which we tried to fix our mistake by arming another which we had to fix ourselves 20 years later.

And now we are paying for it on a daily basis.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[iMMersE]

Bzzt. "Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented 47 executions of child offenders in eight countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the USA and Yemen."

Read about it here

"The USA and Iran have each executed more child offenders than the other six countries combined and Iran has now matched the USA's total since 1990 of 19 child executions."

That's right folks, Iran has caught up with the USA. CAUGHT UP!

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Darlantan]

You, sir, are wrong.

Here, let me pick apart the major points of your short troll:

1: The problem here is that these people, by and large, have not been proven to be terrorists. How would you like it if you were randomly grabbed off the street, called a murder, and thrown in prison? Here in the US, we used to believe that people were innocent until proven guilty. Obviously you don't.

2: Torture is not an effective means of getting reliable intel from people, despite what TV has told you. Torture IS very good at getting people to do what you want them to do. While the second statement may appear to counter the first, it doesn't. Torture attempts to force compliance through pain, threat of death, or extreme discomfort. When successful, the victim will do whatever they think you want, if it means you will quit torturing them. This includes signing false confessions, even admitting to things they know are untrue. If tortured enough (and HERE's a classic example) you can get someone to admit that 1+1=3. If you know enough beforehand to catch false statements and continue torturing the victim until you get a reliable answer, then you basically know the answer beforehand anyway. If you don't, then how do you know when to stop? The first answer may be unreliable, and so may the third, fifth, 86th, whatever. If they DO give you the correct information at some point, how do you know?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Wizard Drongo]

I would be. I'd want them taken somewhere where they are no danger to anyone else or themselves anymore, either to a point when they are genuinely rehabilitated, or in cases where that just isn't possible, locked up forever (there are a fair number of people who aren't reformable; particularly so with those who aren't mentally ill in any way, merely see what they did as the right thing) No one. I'll repeat that slowly for you. N-O O-N-E has the right to end another sentient beings existence unless said being wishes it (consensual euthanasia) and is of a sound mind, or said being is directly and seriously threatening the first parties existence. Nobody should be able to kill anyone else. Not some guy who's found his wife screwing the milkman. Not some women who's been pushed too far by a drunken arsehole and wants him gone. Not a drunken mob intent on blood from some child-raping scumbag. On the surface, all of these are fairly just reasons for being extremely pissed off. But they still don't have the right to kill someone. Governments, by definition, are the people leading the people. If I can't shoot someone because I think they killed a child, why should the government have that right. Answer? They shouldn't. And in modern civilised countries, they don't. It's taken us a number of centuries to get to this point, and some would argue my country, for example (the UK) is still illegally killing people, by puttng armed men in the presence of other armed men and telling them to defend themselves (war is a tricksy one, probably beyond the scope of my post, but I stand by my 'don't kill people' stance..unless someone's invading, why should troops be in the presence of other troops. I'm not sure I understand why Iraq was a clear and extreme danger to my personal safety, or that of my countrymen). My country last executed someone in the 1960's. The twentieth century will hopefully go down in the history books not just for nuclear weaponry, Hitler, Stalin, The Beatles and the internet, but also as the century when the civilised world turned around and said "we've not the right to kill people". Maybe the weird little third-world nations that still cling to mob-rule and legalised murder will be able to say the same about the twenty-first century. I really hope so.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[aplusjimages]

Here in the USA, we used to believe in our country, I guess you don't.

What the hell does that mean? What is with people thinking that if they support the war or torturing of people that they are more patriotic than those who don't. I'm sure everyone believes in the country we live in, we just don't believe in the people leading it. Ask yourself this, if Clinton was doing all things that Bush was doing, would you "believe in our country"? I'm guessing not.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[nightfire-unique]

So from "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave," to "Land of those doing better than Iran."

How nice.

Think of the Children

[Wellington Grey]

Amirhussein Jaharuti, the manager of a major Internet service provider in Tehran, said the government's restrictions focus on pornography, and he feels that filtering is appropriate.

"This is the demand of Iranian families, that they don't want their children to use these kinds of sites,"

Ah it's good to see that families are the same the world over. Even in Iran parents don't want to take responsibility for raising their own children.

-Grey

Re:Think of the Children

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Even in Iran parents don't want to take responsibility for raising their own children.

It's very easy to repeat this popular /. mantra. But if you, as a parent, believe that it is wrong for your children to be exposed to pornography, then it is complete fucking impossible to bring them up right in modern liberal society without enclosing them in a solid steel cube and burying them 20 feet underground. So the fact that some parents would like a little help from the government in bringing up their kids is hardly people failing to take responsibility for their own kids. The truth is that you repeat this mantra, not because you care about how anyone brings up their kids, but because you'd like free access to various materials on the web. I certainly won't hold that against you, but please don't dress up your wishes as anything other than what they are.

Re:Think of the Children

[Dunbal]

But if you, as a parent, believe that it is wrong for your children to be exposed to pornography

      You know, I'm a parent. My two daughters know all about pornography. They CHOOSE not to look at it because they think it's gross and crude, rather than have my beliefs imposed on them by telling them it's "WRONG". Some people like pornography. Others don't. Turning something into a "taboo" or criminalizing it is not a rational way of dealing with the world. I swear to you that if your kids LIKE pornography, there is nothing at ALL you can do to prevent it. They'll do it behind your back. At school. At a friend's house. Are you going to lock them up? Talking about this stuff with your kids is far more rational than pushing for a law that makes it "illegal" and hoping the government will do your job for you.

Re:Think of the Children

[Dunbal]

the trouble with ragheads

      The trouble with "niggers"...
      The trouble with "spics"...
      The trouble with "chinks"...
      The trouble with "gringos"...

      Now the word for the day is "raghead" is it? You know, every cultural, political, religious or ethnic group will have its extremists. These are the few that tend to put the majority in a bad light - but only for shortsighted persons like yourself. You sir, are PART of the problem. Name-calling and generalizing only serves to perpetuate the hate and recruit more extremists on either side of this cultural, political or religious "divide" that seems impossible for people like you to cross. People all around the world are different. Look different. Act different. They even think different. And the big question is - SO WHAT?

Re:Think of the Children

[foreverdisillusioned]

They CHOOSE not to look at it because they think it's gross and crude,

Not to rain on your parade or anything (because I totally agree with your post), but I think there are very, very few people in this world that honestly find ALL pornography (this means all art intended to sexually arouse--this includes soft core and artistic stuff) completely unappealing. My sister can launch into a very convincing anti-porn tirade, but played with her laptop enough times to figure out that she's a huge yaoi fan.

A lot of people out there have been exposed to nothing but "mainstream", plastic, horrible crap only to find out how wonderful and full of joy porn can be from a site like, say, Abby Winters. If sex interests you at all, then there is some form of pornography out there that will also interest you. People who claim otherwise either 1. Have absolutely no imagination whatsoever or 2. Are in deep denial.

Anyway I'm not advocating that you NOT "talk to your kids"--by all means, do!--just don't delude yourself into thinking that they're going to be completely open and honest with you about their opinions on sex and masturbation and porn.

Re:Think of the Children

[demi]

This dialog always goes:

1. Parents who want to restrict what is seen in public forums don't want to take responsibility for raising their children: they want the government to raise them.
2. Since I do take responsibility for raising them, I would like to have some control over what they're exposed to, or at least when and in what context.
3. You shouldn't restrict what your kids see! You should raise your children in the manner I see fit.

The parent post is just step 3. Isn't it interesting how the people who first want parents "taking responsibility" for raising their children in fact do not want that, they want to impose a child-rearing method on parents.

Re:Think of the Children

[tehcyder]

You know, I'm a parent. My two daughters know all about pornography. They CHOOSE not to look at it because they think it's gross and crude, rather than have my beliefs imposed on them by telling them it's "WRONG".

Yes, because obviously children don't need to be taught anything at all by anyone at any time, as they come into the world just knowing everything already, with fully developed moral, aesthetic and social awareness.

Heaven forbid that as their mere parent you should dare to interfere with this perfect knowledge by imposing old-fashioned ethical standards on them.

Slashdot

[Bongo Bill]

Figures. The first two comments are likening Iran to the US. As if there were any comparison between Iranian blogging, where honest journalism is overtly illegal if it's slanted too hard against the government, and American blogging, where every politician of note is compared to Hitler or Stalin on a daily basis. Get some perspective.

Re:Slashdot

[Clever7Devil]

Whereas, in Iran it's moot to compare your leaders to those of the Axis. Without the Holocaust, they are just failed conquerers...

Re:Slashdot

[Omnifarious]

I agree with you. There is currently no comparison. But that is not a reason for complacency or self-congratulation either.

Calling people 'unamerican' for not sharing the government's view of things or the president stating that atheists are not citizens and certainly not patriots is edging right up there. It's not that far from uttering that statement and enforcing it, especially now that habeas corpus has been suspended for whoever the president decides are 'enemy combatants'.

We are kept from becoming Iran by the thinnest of lines. It galls me that probably two the biggest factors in the Republican's losing the legislative branch are sex scandals and the fact we're doing poorly in Iraq. The president's horrible abuse of power, condoning of torture, and his statements like those about atheists probably weren't that important to most voters who switched sides.

Most Americans seem to think that it's just fine if we become Iran as long as they don't have to actually think about any public figure having any sort of sexuality or see any sort of evidence that can't be ignored that our star is falling in the world.

Re:Slashdot

[Omnifarious]

*nod* Firebombing Dresden was a tactic we used to get Hitler to target civilians rather than military installations. *think* If I felt we had a clear strategy or some idea what we were doing, I could perhaps forgive a bit of spilled milk to get there. But I don't think we do.

I've heard anecdotes of prisoners in our various torture prisons who aren't there for any particularly good reason. We can't, in fact, muster even the tiniest shred of evidence for their incarceration.

Additionally, the existence of Abu Gharib was a horrible move from the standpoint of actually winning the war in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if that, more than any other single factor (including the natural inclination of the populace to fall into civil war over religious and ethnic differences) has been what has hurt us in Iraq.

Our leadership no longer knows how to win a war. They never did. They know how to have their strings pulled by various moneyed interests in the US. And none of them care about the war in particular, they just want stability so they can suck out all the oil.

And, as for the war on terrorism, we are doing pretty badly there. We're consistently failing to understand the problem, and seem to be bending over backwards to make it worse. And we favor tactics that harass people and look scary over tactics that actually work.

So, as I said, if we had even vaguely effective leadership, I might be willing to overlook (with some amount of distaste and muttering about how ugly war is) some human rights abuses. As it is, nothing is being done that will end the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism quickly, expediently and with a minimal loss of life.

Lastly, pointing out other people's human rights abuses and using that as a reason we shouldn't care about our own is kind of disturbing. Most of Bush's supporters would claim that they abhorred moral relativism. So your invocation of it is interesting to say the least.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[JeTmAn81]

As far as I can tell, free speech in America is working just like it's supposed to. The Dixie Chicks exercised their right to criticize the president, and fans and others chose to exercise their right to criticize the Dixie Chicks for their statements. The government didn't censor anyone, and no one had their rights trampled.

Re:It's a good thing...

[Jerf]

Are you going to wake up in a cold sweat tonight, truly and honestly afraid that that bump in the night was caused by government agents coming along to disappear you as a result of posting that?

Or are you expecting to be up-modded, congratulated, and generally receive social approval?

Wake me when the answer to the first is a non-rhetorical yes.

In the meantime, while life in the US isn't perfect, after six continuous years of screeching I'm getting a serious "crying wolf" vibe.

Iran is in good company

[MrSteveSD]

I'm sure Iran is not exactly a bastion of free expression, but I've seen plenty of Iranian people who have been interviewed on camera criticizing the Iranian government and calling them all a bunch of idiots. Then there was the recent case of Iranian students jeering the President, burning a picture of him, and throwing fireworks (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1 462_2043334,00.html). That's not the sort of thing you do if you are terrified of your government. Iraqis would certainly never have dared do that to Saddam Hussein (backed by the US et al, for many years), and Iranians would probably not have dared do it to the brutal US/UK-backed Shah of Iran either.

I've worked with a number of people from around the Middle East and all of them said that Saudi Arabia was far worse than Iran. Perhaps it would be wise to tackle the most oppressive countries first.

I have no idea whether Iranian police normally herd student protesters into "Free Speech" Zones well away from President Ahmadinejad, as is common practice in the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) or whether the Iranian government enforces huge protest exclusion zones in Tehran, using the threat of terrorism as some kind of bizarre justification. In the UK there is a half-mile protest exclusion zone around parliament, which was introduced in 2005, 2 years after a million angry citizens marched outside Parliament in full view of the media. Maya Evans, a woman who read out the names of dead soldiers within the zone was arrested, charged and convicted of breaching the "Serious Organised Crime and Police Act" by staging an unauthorised protest. I think it was Chomsky who said "The worst enemy of a government is its own population". It's certainly beginning to seem that way.

Re:Iran is in good company

[NeutronCowboy]

You're right. In Iran, people aren't herded into free speech zones. Instead, they are beaten to a pulp. This is just one case. There are several more. I invite you to just dig through the results of "iran student protests", or to find out what happened to prominent politicians who got a little too close to the West.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Stonehand]

A cynic might suggest that there is a difference between criticizing a president who is largely a loudmouthed figurehead, and something more substantial such as criticizing the Guardian Council or the very structure of the Iranian government in so far as said Council has the most of the actual power. The Council may be happy with letting Ahmadinejad take some heat, if it makes themselves look more reasonable and their own power is unquestioned.

"The ends justify the means" - no they don't

[fantomas]

A counter statement might be "what goes around comes around".

Or, a history lesson: empires rise and empires fall. Be nice to people on the way up, and they might be nice to your children as your country declines in importance.

America, Israel and Iran

[Colin Smith]

The unholy trinity. This is the real Axis of Evil.

These three nations are deliberately provoking each other to war. Lets get rid of some pretensions. It's about resources, nothing to do with spreading democracy or a War on Terror. It's all about control of resources, particularly oil.

The Iranians know that America can't afford another conventional ground war, Iraq is already destroying the US economy. Iran is using Israel to provoke the US into overextending itself, there's a load of talk about replacing Israel with an Islamic state which is pure provocation to Israel, who retaliate by announcing that Iran has a nuclear weapon programme able to produce a bomb within 3 years. Both are trying to get the US involved. Which is quite convenient for the US because Iran has huge oil reserves and they're planning to sell them for Euros, not dollars. Doing so will cause the US economy further damage, causing the dollar to slide further.

Iran wants a guerilla ground war to bring the US to it's knees, Israel wants the US to give Iran a kicking for them, with a nuclear response if necessary and the US wants to make sure the oil remains tradable for dollars, so preventing soaring inflation in the US. So, everyone's spoiling for a fight, which is very dangerous, this is how world wars start.

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[cold fjord]

The cost of the Iraq war is a pimple on the behind of either the American economy, or the US Government budget. The annual costs of the Iraq war are on the order of $100-150 billion. The US Government budget is $2 trillion. The US economy is on the order of $12 trillion. From an economic perspective, the cost of Iraq is an annoyance, nothing more. The US Army during the Vietnam war was 3x its current size. During WW2, it was 16x larger while the country was half its current size. Militarily the Iraq war is uncomfortable for the current size of the Army and the policies they want to keep, but that is about all.

Iran isn't simply provoking Israel, its President is making statements suggesting a threat of genocide that even various Arab governments condemn. Maybe you can understand why the Jewish state might be sensitive to that? Or, maybe not. I can't imagine you advocate them accepting annihilation just to keep the peace.

Europe has been taking the lead on the Iran problem*, and is failing. Is that because Europeans want oil priced in Euros, a nuclear armed Iran (soon) with missiles capable of reaching Europe (now), they are simply feckless, or maybe the Iranian government is run by fanatics who have an agenda of their own that they value above Europe's carrots & sticks?

Wars tend to start when one country attacks another. Iran has been sponsoring terrorism across the region, providing arms to Iraqi insurgents, and is making threats against other countries. That isn't a recipe for peace.

By the way, how does suicide bombing work into this? Since we "know" that religion isn't involved, but oil is, how do they convince suicide bombers to do it? Do they offer to bury the bomber's remains in pure kerosene or something?

* Yet more evidence of US unilateralism.

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[Colin Smith]

he annual costs of the Iraq war are on the order of $100-150 billion. And yet, funnily enough, you're running a deficit of around $600 billion. The $120 billion or so spent specifically on the war isn't the only spending dedicated to the war. You'll have noticed your interest rates creeping up. That's going to continue as long as the war lasts, and beyond. That's damaging to the economy. Since the 70s, America has exported much of it's manufacturing capacity and is already borrowing heavily to fund existing lifestyles. The lenders are now becoming unwilling to fund a lifestyle which involves warfare.

The US Army during the Vietnam war was 3x its current size. It's not the size, it's the spending. An M1 tank costs $3-$4 million each these days.

Iran isn't simply provoking Israel, its President is making statements suggesting a threat of genocide that even various Arab governments condemn. Of course they are. How else would you provoke the US and Israel? As I said, they're trying to get the US involved in a wider guerilla war.

or maybe the Iranian government is run by fanatics who have an agenda of their own that they value above Europe's carrots & sticks? Or maybe they're playing a game of brinkmanship and have specific goals. Like the end of the US as the world superpower.

Wars tend to start when one country attacks another. Iran has been sponsoring terrorism across the region, providing arms to Iraqi insurgents, and is making threats against other countries. That isn't a recipe for peace. Lol. Oh come on. Iraq, Afghanistan are because of US sponsored terrorism. Both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were created by the US, please don't try to get sanctimonious about geopolitical strategies.

By the way, how does suicide bombing work into this? Pawns. Like the US soldiers. It's handy to be able to persuade someone else to die for your cause/wealth.

Technical solutions all seem to be gone

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Invisiblog took submissions by Mixmaster email and used gpg signing as the authentication mechanism. They seem to be defunct as of about a year ago. The eelbash anonymous remailer announced a replacement, but the page for that is 404 now.

Re:Fucking grow up (2006 not 2003).

[Tyson W]

Your Amnesty International link seem to be to the 2003 report. It would probably also be a good idea to provide the links the US reports as well, since you are (presumably) doing a comparison. A good summary is that you don't want to be in the wrong group in either country:

Iran:
amnesty international
human rights watch

US:
amnesty international
human rights watch

It's also worth remembering, whenever Iran is being discussed, that the present government is a fairly direct outcome of Operation Ajax, in which the US and Britian overthrew the original (and very progressive) Iranian democratic government and installed a very brutal dictator (the Shah) because Iran planned to nationalize its oil (which was the result of, amongst other things, them being denied the right to even audit British Petroleum's books).

Unless of course...

[Zebra_X]

You are the president.

Have you been paying any attention?

[Chris Burke]

The ends justify the means.

No they don't, because the ends, as in the effect, are a consequence of the means, as in the cause.

So if the ends you want are peace and democracy, and your means are violence and torture, then the ends you get are a non-stop insurgency, civil war, and lawlessness that will at best settle into a theocratic state run by the personal militias of religious extremists.

Are you paying attention to the news? What you are seeing is cause and effect. Are these the ends that you desired? No? Well guess what -- that's why the ends don't justify the means, because you don't get to pick what end your means will achieve! Wishing that torturing random people accused of being terrorists will bring peace and harmony doesn't make it so, and if it isn't obvious to you at this point it never will be because you are deliberately avoiding anything resembling a fact.

Well let me clue you in a little: Abu Ghraib had consequences. Very bad, very tragic consequences. While hardly the lone example of your misplaced philosophy, the fact is that those means have seriously damaged our ends, such that they are probably unachievable. The ends, whether you like it or not, stemmed directly from the means, and hence those means cannot be justified.

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[cold fjord]

What most people think of as the Abu Ghraib scandal was a small group of bored, stupid soldiers engaging in some sick thrills which mostly occurred over a period of a few days. They have been punished for it. What they did was for "fun" not policy.

Japan, Italy, and Germany are presently peaceful democracies after suffering severe violence and occupation for up to seven years. Germany did have a short lived but violent insurgency (the Werewolves) that was put down. Germany seems to have come through it OK, the Nazi pagans didn't take over. The coup attempt by the Japanese Army didn't have legs either.

Iraq has just reached its one-year election anniversary, the Iraqi economy is strong and growing, the Iraqi security forces are leading increasing numbers of operations, and Iraqi tribes are turning on Al Qaeda in Iraq which has lost at least 7,000 terrorists killed or captured. If the Iraqi people, government, and the Coalition Forces can start getting a handle on the surging sectarian violence, much of which seems to be emanating from Al Sadr's militia which may be spinning out of his control, Iraq could do well.

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[Chris Burke]

What most people think of as the Abu Ghraib scandal was a small group of bored, stupid soldiers engaging in some sick thrills which mostly occurred over a period of a few days. They have been punished for it. What they did was for "fun" not policy.

So that law Bush signed wasn't policy either?

There have been asphyxiations during CIA interrogations, and many allegations of torture and abuse outside of the specific incidents of Abu Ghraib. If at this point you think that those things which you can find pictures of on Google Images are the most that has occured, and a law authorizing the President to decide what is and is not torture when they were known to already have an extremely liberal definition is just hot air and not indicative of policy, then I have to say you're very naive.

Japan, Italy, and Germany are presently peaceful democracies after suffering severe violence and occupation for up to seven years. Germany did have a short lived but violent insurgency (the Werewolves) that was put down. Germany seems to have come through it OK, the Nazi pagans didn't take over. The coup attempt by the Japanese Army didn't have legs either.

Thank you. Referring to the time 60 years ago when the U.S. new how to actually accomplish something and reconstruct a nation really puts the current failure in Iraq in sharper relief.

Do you think Japan would have done as well if MacArthur had gone in with absolutely no plan on what to do, no understanding of the culture, and no intention of trying to fix things that were blatantly broken? Rumsfeld said he "doesn't do nation building". Well, nation building is the job he got, but he "didn't do" it in the sense that he didn't have a plan for it.

The coup, by the way, occured before the Emperor surrendered and was an attempt to stop him from doing so. The reason peace prevailed there was because the people were loyal to the Emperor and he told them to lay down arms, and MacArthur was wise enough to retain a ceremonial position for the Emperor, saving face and not giving the people a reason to revolt to protect him. Those poor soldiers stuck on Pacific atols still fighting the war twenty years later? That would have been every Japanese had things been slightly different.

If the current Admin. understood the differences beteen WWII and Iraq II better than you do, maybe Iraq would be going better. Sadly, they think "it worked before, therefore it will work now even if we have no idea what makes now different than then" is sound logic.


Iraq has just reached its one-year election anniversary, the Iraqi economy is strong and growing, the Iraqi security forces are leading increasing numbers of operations, and Iraqi tribes are turning on Al Qaeda in Iraq which has lost at least 7,000 terrorists killed or captured. If the Iraqi people, government, and the Coalition Forces can start getting a handle on the surging sectarian violence, much of which seems to be emanating from Al Sadr's militia which may be spinning out of his control, Iraq could do well.

And a year later, those elections, which were supposed to solve everything, have proven to be largely irrelevent. The current government is as widely held as corrupt and incompetent as the U.S. appointed one before it. If all you wanted was an election irrespective of the situation surrounding it then Saddam held elections too that were also useless outside of appearances.

Did you read your article on the economy? Yay, economic indicators are going up due to the influx of foreign money and oil money. Is it being felt by the average person? No, unemployment is at 30 to 50 percent, and Iraqis are burning through their savings. That might make the economy look good because there is more money churning, but it does not make the prospects of the average Iraqi look good. Still I'm glad that even if they can't walk in the street without fear of being abducted and tortured for wearing the wrong clothes in the wrong neighborhood, at least we've ma

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[misanthrope101]

I agree that there was a lot of hyperbole that they were "silenced," when obviously they weren't. But they, and many others, were surprised at the level of hostility they got for opposing the war. They weren't silenced, but they recieved death threats and a lot of hate-mail. Were they criminally oppressed? No, but we are much less tolerant of dissent than our freedom-loving self-image would lead one to believe.

It isn't as if people don't like celebrities using their fame to push a cause--all the country singers who supported the war were applauded, so it just comes down to "you can have an opinion and talk about it on stage, unless you disagree with me on something, then shut up, or you're evil." I felt they (the Dixie Chicks) were a bit naive and too brash, but I was embarassed at the hostility they got. There is nothing unpatriotic about saying "I don't think we should invade this country."

Intolerance for dissent does tend to cross political boundaries, so don't think I'm conservative-bashing. Though to be honest, I wonder how many entertainers got death threats for supporting the war? Not so many, probably.

pray for the rapture

[misanthrope101]

In theory, the rapture could happen at any second and they'll all vanish. I was going to start a petition to get the ball rolling, but I didn't know where to submit it.

All the Shah's Men

[alphafoo]

I'm surprised that this book isn't mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia article's references or bibliography. For anyone with an even passing interest in the parent post's claim that we (the USA that is) put the Shah in power, you'll find the book informative. I wasn't interested when I started the book, but it's well-written and tough to put down.

This is Mother Fucking Free Speech

[Shihar]

Lets pretend I am a Republican. Let us also pretend that I am an awesome punk rocker that all the punks love. One day I get up on stage and start railing against how stupid it is to be pro-choice, let gays merry, or have weak drug laws. What do you think happens? My fans would get pissed off, no matter how much they like my music.

Look, if you are a celebrity, you are taking a risk every time you come out and make a political statement. It isn't like you are analyst with access to CIA intelligence or an economist whose understands the deep inner workings of the economy. You are one stupid person in 6 billion who just so happens to perform some form of art good enough (or at least marketed enough) that a lot of people appreciate. You are not an authority on anything other than your art. If you take an invitation to express your art as an invitation to express your political opinions, fans will rightfully we get pissed off that you are wasting their time spewing your self righteous stuck up opinion. They don't like you for your opinion, they like you for your art. Get over it.

The Dixie Chicks took the stage, looked their fan base in the eye, and told them all that they were stupid for liking Bush. Now, I might not agree with the stupid red necks, and I might not like Bush, but I am unsurprised and unsympathetic about the treatment Dixie Chicks received. If they want to be politicians, they should be politicians. If they want to be well loved stars, they should work on maintaining the love. Part of maintaining the love is not preaching to your fans the exact opposite of what they believe. The moral of the story is that if you make a living by having millions of red necks loving you, don't call them stupid. Either accept that they are going to stop liking you and make your speeches, or in the words of our fine internet generation STFU.

Finally, free speech is just that; free speech. Free speech means that I can turn to a democrat and call him a pussy ass terrorist lover with the fighting constitution of a Frenchman because he wants to pull out of Iraq. I can turn to a Republican and call him a racist, women hating, vile little bigot who won't be happy until every black person is back on a plantation and women have their feet bound and clits circumcised. I can also flick off the Dixie Chicks, call their music pure shit, and swear to never listen to their crap again because they are a bunch of flaming liberals who want queers and terrorist running around the street.

This is free speech.

People need to harden themselves up a little and get over it. Free speech includes name calling and telling people who disagree with you to fuck off. Free speech does not imply rational debate or a thoughtful and open mind (though free speech certainly helps those things). Free speech is for racist KKK shit heads, neonazis, stupid red necks, whiny little pop punk bands, brain dead pop artist, self righteous actors living in mansions hypocritical to their beliefs, and all the people who hate all the above and would sooner plug their ears with their fingers if they were not busy using them to give a big two handed New York hello.

This is mother fucking free speech. No one said that it was nice.

Blogging in Europe can also take courage

[paltemalte]

There are thoughtcrimes in Europe also. Try living in Germany and voicing a non-sanctioned opinion on, or even just pose the wrong question about - the Holocaust. Yes, the one with the capital H.
That may very well land you in prison for a long long time.

Free speech and thought ought to reign supreme everywhere, but it doesn't. No matter what the opinion or message is, who it may offend or who may get generally upset by it - nothing should be banned from being printed, stated, or otherwise communicated. No fact, historical event, or assumption should be illegal to question.

The US may not have gotten as far with killing free speech, but give the repubocrats a while longer and we will soon not only catch up with Europe, but probably surpass and become even more draconian.

Bash Iran all you want for being oppressive, but stop being so f:ing ignorant of what is going on in the west, in our own backyards.

Free speech is an all-or-nothing idea. It ceases to exist the moment it is encroached on, even if ever so little.

Proxy access in Iran

[patrick0]

I spent 3 weeks backpacking around Iran in May last year.

Their blocking system is fairly limited. Each ISP implements its own set of manually updated filters (not a central blocking system like China). I was trying to access certain sites -- www.sitename.com might work at one place but be blocked at another, though at the other net cafe sitename.com or IP address would often work just fine. I found the blocking policy inconsistent, though not that many sites were blocked (mainly gay sites were blocked).

Because of the Iran/Iraq war the population is very young -- 70% of Iranians are under 30 according to the Iran Lonely Planet guide. I imagine that'll mean plenty of blogs, whether insightful or the usual blog trash. People were quite politically aware and well educated. The news media seemed no more biased than Fox News in the US!

It's a beautiful country and well worth a visit. Persepolis is amazing. Tehran was like any other big city -- lots of expensive houses, cars and more liberally dressed women. The latest model mobile phones were available everywhere. I was offered alcohol quite a bit (especially by taxi drivers). It's illegal for Muslims to drink but the Christian and Jewish population are able to drink. Incidently, Iran has the highest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel.

I didn't know much about Iran before visiting, I'm just glad I went. Unfortunately if you're American/British it's difficult (though not impossible) to get a tourist visa unless you're in a tour group. I presume this is due to reciprocal restrictions applied by the UK/US on their citizens.

The last few years there have been fairly low in terms of tourism numbers and people were incredibly friendly to me - offering to take me to their homes for dinner and so on. Plenty of people were critical of their government but were just as critical of the American govt.

Funnily enough I just visited Israel last month and had a 45 minute interrogation because I'd visited Malaysia (a very westernised 70% muslim country). I'm glad I wasn't using the passport with the Iranian stamp in it!

I took photos of the nuclear installation between Kashan & Abyaneh despite the taxi driver panicking I'd get caught (you're not allowed to take photos of military installations). Though you can get a much better view of the place through Google maps!

Re:death threats=bad

[Shihar]

Stars get death threats all the time. I can promise you that Limbaugh gets death threats daily. You might not get death threats, but I am sure some left wing nut job sends them out daily in the same way some right wing nut job sends them out to the Dixie Chicks. Death threats are a fact of life when you are a public figure. I mean seriously, someone made an entire movie about killing Bush. There is a website called killbush.net. If you are not a society that embraces free speech, unless no one makes death threats, then there is not a free society in the world.

So, is it sad that a few hundred dumb red necks sent death threats to the Dixie Chicks? Sure. Does the fact that the US has a few hundred dumb red necks willing to send empty threats to the Dixie Chicks out of 300,000,000 other people prove that US is some how fascist state that doesn't allow free speech? No. Get 300,000,000 people together in one nation and someone is going to act like a douche. That is life.