Slashdot Mirror
Iran Moves To End "Facebook Revolution"
We've had a few readers send in updates on the chaotic post-election situation in Iran. Twitter is providing better coverage than CNN at the moment. There are both tech and humanitarian angles to the story, as the two samples below illustrate. First, Hugh Pickens writes with a report from The Times (UK) that "the Iranian government is mounting a campaign to disrupt independent media organizations and Web sites that air doubts about the validity of the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the nation's president. Reports from Tehran say that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter were taken down after Mr Ahmadinejad claimed victory. SMS text messaging, a preferred medium of communication for young Iranians, has also been disabled. 'The blocking of access to foreign news media has been stepped up, according to Reporters Without Borders. 'The Internet is now very slow, like the mobile phone network. YouTube and Facebook are hard to access and pro-reform sites... are completely inaccessible.'" And reader momen abdullah sends in one of the more disturbing Ask Slashdots you are likely to see. "People, we need your urgent help in Iran. We are under attack by the government. They stole the election. And now are arresting everybody. They also filtered every sensitive Web page. But our problem is that they also block the SMS network and are scrambling satellite TVs. Please, can you help us to set up some sort of network using our home wireless access points? Can anybody show us a link on how to install small TV/radio stations? Any suggestion for setting up a network? Please tell us what to do or we are going to die in the a nuclear war between Iran and US." Update: 06/14 18:32 GMT by KD : Jim Cowie contributes a blog post from Renesys taking a closer look at the state of Iranian Internet transit, as seen in the aggregated global routing tables, and concluding that the story may not be as clear-cut as has been reported.
On one hand, we have the freedom and lives of millions of people. On the other hand we can help bring Twitter down. Tough choice...
Sometimes in some situations the only real answer is unyielding violence. Sure you can hedge on the bet that eventually enough old people will die off that Iran could become a free country but at the rate they can find new help... sometimes a peaceful revolution just isn't a realistic expectation.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio HAM Radio.
you are not smart politics-wise are you ? hardliners stole the election - they got 55%+ vote even in places that never voted for anyone except their ethnic candidates. election fraud has been committed. and now the government of ahmedinajad is trying to suppress discussion. thats it.
Read radical news here
We got rid of our idiot leadership, now Iran looks to be doing the same.
In all fairness, you didn't get rid of your "idiot leadership", Bush left office as his second term ended. You had an opportunity to get rid of him after the first four years and you blew it.
Never mind Bush; look at your nation's founding.
Your ancestors asked (quite nicely at first) for moderate tax relief from the British Government.
The British ignored them.
Your ancestors then started asking about representation in Parliament; if the current people won't change the taxes, maybe we can get some of us elected to help persuade them.
The British still ignored them. Result: full out warfare and for the want of a 10% drop in basic tax, a few MP's and a end to the tea and cotton taxes, they lost the entire American colonies...
The Irani people are an increasingly connected, modern and well-educated (by Middle east standards) lot. Eventually, too many lame excuses by the crackpots will push the majority into outward disobedience. Then a lot of people will get shot, and public anger will rise, eventually resulting in another revolution. Hopefully this time without the Council of Nutjobs and the Supreme unelected Loony they currently have at the top of the tree.
Unless they start moderating towards the public opinion, it will only make this happen faster.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
The extent of the fraud perpetrated is clearly intended to send a message. If the powers that be in Iran just wanted Ahmadinejad reelected, they could have done so subtly. Give him 45% or so in round 1, to Mousavi's 39%, and then have him win round 2 with 52% or so. People wouldn't like it, but it'd at least be believable.
No, by giving Ahmadinejad ~67% of the vote, even in Mousavi's hometown, they are very clearly sending a message to the people that their votes do not count. After such a high turnout, after so much enthusiasm, this is a clear move to disenfranchise the Iranian people, so that they don't even try to vote against the entrenched powers in the future.
Some are looking for proof of fraud. But unless anyone is expecting Ahmadinejad to admit that he cheated, no solid official evidence is going to show up.
On the other hand, they:
Here's a clip from Corriere Della Sera on police attacking protesters.
North Korea (and several african states)
---
It is possible to keep a dictatorship your entire life despite the will of the people.
You just have to be willing to be brutal enough.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I think that what momen abdullah is asking can be achieved using ham radio. Look for PSK31 for low-bandwith digital communications. Maybe "truckers" in Iran are using CB radio? You can use that as well, maybe hack it a bit. Anyway, building a simple 80-100MHz FM band transmitter is very easy to build, just hook it into a power amplifier for better coverage.
Look at the first search result on google for "fm transmitter", this is what i found. seems easy enough to build with easily attainable components.
4Z5TX
This election would have had little impact on foreign policy, but the Iranian president does have a lot of leeway on domestic matters. Under Ahmadinejad, inflation and unemployment have skyrocketted. Rather than try to take action to fix it, he just lies about the figures (easy to do, when you control the media). That was really a key issue in the "election".
Of course, not having a Holocaust denier as president would probably help foreign relations a bit as well.
(Yes I know he never comes out and denies it. He just "questions" it. A lot.)
I'm afraid if you want change, it has to come from within. The Iranian people will have to rise up and displace their government, by force if necessary. Chatting about it on the net won't help, and the US is not going to at all be interested in forcing change at this point. As with pretty much any real change in life, at has to come from within. If this really matters to the people of Iran, then they have the power to change it. You CAN overthrow a government, history has plenty of examples.
As for nuclear war, I wouldn't worry too much about that. The US isn't going to strike first, and Iran lacks the technology to deliver nuclear payloads to the US. Also, as a practical matter while Iranian leadership seems to be oppressive and such, they aren't insane. I'm sure they full and well understand what the US response to a nuclear attack would be, and nobody wants to be the ruler of a glass parking lot.
So I wouldn't worry about nuclear war, but I would worry about Iran becoming a whole lot more oppressive. If you are Iranian, the only real solution to that is to displace your government. Sorry, but that just seems to be the fact. They've made it quite clear they aren't interested in democratic change, and the president of the US isn't interested in starting another war that the military can't sustain, nor would the US population go along with it.
So if change matters, you'll have to do it yourselves, and yes it may be bloody. That or get out of the country, which is probably what I'd opt for. I'd like to think I could stand up and fight but realistically I'd just run away, I don't have the guts to be a revolutionary I think.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
--Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States.
Note to mods! Untrue, read up!
In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. After Operation Ajax, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule became increasingly autocratic. With American support, the Shah was able to rapidly modernize Iranian infrastructure, but he simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Recent_history_.281921.E2.80.93present.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimized_Link_State_Routing_Protocol
http://www.olsr.org/
That is one option, it is however that of a completly mad dictator. A more human answer is that the goverment is afraid. Afraid that a closer more realistic faked result would spark revolution. Its soldiers might be willing to shoot on citizens if they think they represent a minority. If the are a majority, then things could be different. Think China vs Russia. The russian soldiers sided with the people recently, the chinese soldiers with their leaders. The reason? Simple, the russian soldiers knew the truth of who was winning the popularity contest.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Before Iran had an Islamic theocracy, Iran had a brutal (but pro-US) right-wing dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran had 2,500 years of monarchy before the Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran has never had anything like a democracy.
Commonly established history has it that Iran was a democracy from 1951 to 1953, when the first democratically elected leader in ***9000 years*** was overthrown by the americans because he nationalized the oil industry. source. In case you guys are wondering where the current tension between Iran and the US comes from, this is at least part of the answer...
As to the matter at hand: would it be possible to make a torrent-like point to point system for exchanging small messages? It would have to feature some sort of encryption, and be able to hide as something else (illegal downloads of movies would be a good candidate). Making it is not really a big problem, but is there enough "internet" left working that something like this might work?
If the people of Iran want to get rid of their government, they can do it themselves.
Dude, pay attention, that's what they're doing. There's a huge difference between us invading Iraq to unseat Saddam and the Iranians standing up to overturn a massively corrupt election. The Iranian people are pissed, and this is their first step toward something less like a dictatorship.
Nobody is calling for substantial outside help (that I've heard of), like asking us to invade Iran to help a revolution. The "left" has nothing to do with this, and the western media seems not to care all that much about the situation. Even the guy who sent the Ask Slashdot only wanted advice on communicating with others!
Regardless of what happens, this whole shebang was started and led entirely by Iranians who are upset with their government, and they're not looking for some foreign power to send in the cavalry, which I have to respect.
Some ways to subvert the censorship.
1) anonymous web proxies that only accept inbound connections from Iran IP space.
2) TOR servers.
3) Ad-Hoc WiFi networks could be used to create a Mesh networks.
4) Multicast information, documents, video over the Mesh.
The Chaos Computer Club made a "FreedomStick" for journalists traveling to China to cover the Olympics. It includes software that automatically uses firefox+tor etc.. More Info Here: http://chinesewall.ccc.de/index-en.html
In the absence of an external interfering force (e. g., the army of the Soviet Union), the fate of a nation is determined by its people. Period.
I didn't know you could win an argument by appending a "Period." after your thesis.
... The Iranians created this horrible society. It is none of our business unless they attempt to develop nuclear weapons. We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities ..... Cultures are different. Vietnamese culture and Iranian culture are different. The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
You seem to be missing out the part when the US helped overthrow the democratically elected government in 1953 and installed a brutal despot. Nope, nothing to do with how that changed Iranian society at all.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Right now, the overwhelming majority clearly oppose the creation of a liberal Western democracy. The Iranians love a brutal Islamic theocracy.
While it's (probably) true that a lot of Iranians support the current government, I don't think you can say the "overwhelming majority" support it. The current situation proves this -- the people are pissed. They tried to do it the right way and they still got screwed by, what seems to be, a rigged election.
I carefully read your post before responding, just to be sure. One element you didn't mention: FEAR. Sure, I'll buy that the Iranian people facilitated the mess they're living in now -- much in the same way that the German people facilitated the Nazi movement. However, remember that power seeks to perpetuate itself; now that this extremist regime has both feet firmly planted, it isn't going to go away simply because the populace doesn't like it. It'll threaten them with imprisonment, torture, death, and threaten the friends and family, even children, of dissidents. It'll threaten with people disappearing in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Stories will circulate about someone merely speaking out against the government in casual conversation, yet that person and his whole family will disappear in the middle of the night, never to be seen or heard from again. Some people may have such strength of their convictions as to take up arms and fight against this, but MOST WILL NOT! I'm sure many (most?) Iranian citizens regret the regime they're living under now, but they don't want to see everyone they care about brutally murdered before their very eyes before being murdered themselves!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The topic was posted by kdawson. 'nough said.
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.
I actually found this line very intriguing. Is it really possible to set up an autonomous network using any sort of commodity wireless routers? It might be a not bad idea at all in a densely populated metropolis. Probably none come with the firmware allowing to do that, but there might be open firmware alternatives. So, 3 questions:
1. Is it technically possible to connect two wireless routers together to form a network?
2. Is there readily-available software needed to set up a centralized/hierarchical network in this way?
3. P2P?
Nonsense.
The white minority in South Africa was able to hold power for decades. Why? They had the guns.
I don't know what percentage of the population supports the Iranian dictatorship. But so long as its supporters are armed and its opponents are not, it doesn't matter how many of them there are.
Building a nuke has nothing to do with "revenge". Since the U.S. has demonstrated its willingness to engage in wars of aggression, any state not closely allied with a nuclear power can only secure itself by obtaining a nuclear deterrent.
Ah, ignorance of history is bliss, ain't it?
Iran was a becoming a modern, secular state. But it's elected prime minister has the temerity to nationalize its oil reserves, which didn't sit well with the U.S. and U.K., so we backed the Shah.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Do you realize how offensive it is to lump all the Iranian people under one label when ascribing motivations or actions to them? If you want to make the state sovereignty argument, fine, but leave it at that. Don't be all, like, "Those damned brown people."
This is extremely uninformed and offensive. You obviously know very little of Iranian culture.
To rule, you need a majority of power. People aren't equally powerful, so you do not necessarily need a majority of people to rule.
Minorities can and do keep majorities hostage. When some classes, like veterans, priests, businessmen or people of inherited wealth command more raw power than regular people, and differ significantly from regular people in their political preferences, this is the rule rather than the exception.
This is true even in democracies, because although voting power may be equal, it's far from the only power there is, or even the most important. If the Iranians rise up against this disenfranchisement, there will be bloodshed, because while the clerics and the revolutionary guard are in a minority, they have more than enough power to match the majority.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
He also refers to "the Iranians" as if they think in unison, like some giant borg-like collective. It is this exact mindset that aids government in their endless quest for not only more revenue, but more power over the people. This is exactly how every government around the world wants you to think.
Come on, this is 2009. If you still can't wrap your head around the truth that people are unique, thinking individuals, each with a unique perspective on life, liberty, and happiness, than you're part of the problem, not the solution.
Unfortunately, setting up large-scale adhoc networks with 802.11b/g hardware is kind of difficult. What you'll want to look at is what's called "wireless mesh networking". Mesh networking is basically the peer-to-peer of networks. The difficulty with using 802.11b/g for mesh networking is that 802.11 standard doesn't really include any concept of a mesh. There are two types of devices: access points and clients. Access points cannot communicate with other access points. It is however, possible for clients to communicate with other clients by switching to ad hoc networking mode. So your options are thus:
1) get a lot of people with 802.11g-capable computers to switch into ad hoc networking mode. This will allow them to connect to each other if the density is high enough (that is if there are enough people close enough). Unfortunately, the range is on the small side, so, unfortunately, this may not work that well. Part of the problem is that clients often have a lower broadcast strength than access points.
2) set up a specifically designed mesh network. To do mesh networking in infrastructure mode, there are going to be four different types of nodes which can be used. 1) AP nodes 2) Client-Client nodes 3) AP-Client nodes 4) Client nodes
AP nodes:
An ordinary wireless access point can act as a hub node.
Client-Client nodes:
There have to be two radios for each client-client node. Both will act as clients to other networks. You'll either need one computer with two wireless cards or two computers which are connected together using some other means (or, if you happen to have an access point which can be switched to client mode (which very few can) then you could use that as a client). You can connect the two computers using an ethernet hub, ethernet cross-over cable, null modem cable, or possibly firewire (although I've never done that). The computers should each by set to bridging mode. Basically, each client will connect to a different access point and they'll then serve to connect the two access points to each-other, bridging the networks. Generally these should be on different frequencies. Although there may be some circumstances where the same frequency can be used.
AP-Client nodes:
There have to be two radios for each AP-client node. One will work as a client to another access point and one will act as an access point for other nodes. Generally, this will mean one computer and one access point connected together by ethernet, but there are a few other ways to do it. The computer should be set into some form of bridging mode which differs some based on operating system. The two radios will always use different frequencies unless there's a long cable-run between them (opposite sides of a building or some such).
Now, you need to figure out how to put this together. You need at least an initial group of people to help build the network. And then you'll lay out a basic topology. You'll plot out the nodes you have available on a graph and then try to connect them together. Client-Client nodes can connect to two nodes, either AP nodes or AP-Client nodes using infrastructure mode or to other Client-Client nodes in ad hoc mode. AP nodes can have multiple Client-Client or AP-Client nodes connected to them. AP nodes cannot connect to other AP nodes unless both AP nodes have wireless bridging modes (very rare) and you can get them to work (even rarer). AP-Client nodes can connect to one AP node (infrastructure) or one Client-Client node (ad hoc) and can have multiple AP-Client or Client-Client nodes connected to them The Client nodes can be used only as stepping stones in an ad hoc connection. I.e. if two client-client nodes want to connect, but are two far from each other, you can put a Client node in between in ad hoc mode and it'll help them connect. This can be done with a string of client nodes.
You'll want to draw all this out on a map, and possibly rearrange equipment as needed to fill in the gaps. You'll also need to decide frequencies so
You are either unbelievably ignorant or a troll. 1) the vietnamese kept POWs for decades after the war, and 2) they are still suing for monetary compensation to clean up the ecological mess left by agent orange. America put the despot in power in Iran. Most Iranians in the past have actually been very pro-American. This is still true of most of the younger Iranians in spite of the fact that we've fucked them pretty hard in the past.
Reporter, I strongly suggest you learn A LOT more about history. If you want to talk about the difference of cultures, you need to actually learn about them. For starters, you need to learn that Americans have the most violent culture of any first world country. Start there, life is not black and white, wake the fuck up, and grow up. Oh, and I'm American.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
they are saying election is stolen, because in azerbaijani parts of iran, ahmedinajad got 55%+ vote. never in iran's history ANYone other than an ethnic azerbaijani got that kind of vote there.
let me put it in american context - ahmedinajad getting 55% vote in azerbaijani parts of iran means barack obama getting 55%+ vote in any part of redneck midwest with little black population.
Read radical news here
This is ignoring the history of Iran since the 1950s. Iran had a democratically elected prime minister, Dr Mossadegh in 1951. He nationalised the oil field. As a result, he was overthrown during a West-supported coup. The western-friendly Shah came to power, installed an autocratic dictatorship, which was overthrown by the theocrats in 1979, who were the most vocal opponents of the Shah. Ayatollah Khomeny came to power, installed an even more brutal and repressive, West-unfriendly theocracy. The West tried to overthrow it by staging a war by cutting a deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq (remember him?), who lusted after Iran's oil fields. After many years of war and nearly a million deaths, a stalemate was reached in 1988. Since then there is an election system in Iran but it is closely controlled by the theocrats. Even though reforms were made, the most progressist of elected leader, Mohamed Katami, did not succeed in freeing the press and installing a real democracy.
Given all the above I would not say the problems of the Iranians are purely their own fault. The West including the US have been meddling in Iranian policies for a long time.
In ideal world maybe - but let's not forget that it was Eisenhower administration and the brits that conspired and overthrew democratically elected government of Iran in the fifties, after the said government was determined to nationalize oil industry of Iran, which sounds too familiar to what's going on in the Middle East today.
Then Iran had endured twenty or so year of brutal dictatorship imposed by the west, until every extremist and not so extremist group was up in arms against it, finally, when the revolution was over religious fundies managed to marginalize everyone else and thus we have Iran of today.
So you're saying that West has nothing to do with it is kind of self-serving, dumb and naive.
Oh don't tell me about genuine democracy in eastern Europe after the fall of Soviet Union, what they had for about a decade was a truly free market, and please don't confuse any kind of democracy especially genuine democracy with free market. For your reference: democracy - Switzerland, free market - Somalia.
Also, please google "1953 Iranian coup d'état" and "Iranian revolution of 1979" so the people around here would stop getting impression as if you're talking out of your ass.
What difference do you perceive between the government of Iran now and that following the Islamic revolution in 1979? The same people are in power, with a few public-facing figureheads being changed out. It is the mullash, Imams and clerics that are running things there and have been since 1979.
A good part of the people of Iran put these folks into power back in 1979. We had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen back then and, gosh, it has happened. The people that didn't agree with the direction then didn't do much to stop it. The people still aren't doing anything. Our ability from the outside to distinguish between the majority wanting this type of Islamic government and the majority being intimidated into accepting it is approximately zero.
So we have a choice. You apparently would like to believe the majority are intimidated into accepting things. I'd say the majority is pretty happy about their government. Maybe they would like some different mullah in charge but would still like some mullah. About the same difference as wanting Obama vs. McCain when people outside would prefer someone more like Buddha or Hitler. Sorry, I do not agree that the Iranian people would even be interested in anything other than a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. And our ability to understand their desires in this area are extremely limited.
What does it take to understand that not all people yearn for freedom?
They did end tyranny by replacing the shah and they did establish a democracy when they voted for Mossadegh - only when that didn't work (i.e. the CIA undid all that and restored the shah) did they resort to more radical means.
Dude, pay attention, that's what they're doing. There's a huge difference between us invading Iraq to unseat Saddam and the Iranians standing up to overturn a massively corrupt election. The Iranian people are pissed, and this is their first step toward something less like a dictatorship.
They won't be successful on their own, unless they have outside support or there is some tremendous economic calamity that motivates people. At best we'll have a Tianeman square event and in a few years after that everyone will keep buying from the dictators..
For the most part, the historical record is pretty clear, once you have a dictatorship, you aren't going to "undictatorship". Just the natural order of things. From a stability of government perspective, democracy is better because it imposes rules about how regime change within the country should take place, but, there's never been a democracy that's been historically stable. The Atheniens cratered themselves. The Romans cratered themselves, and probably we'll crater ourselves. Meanwhile some asian style despot monarchy could have governments that last for a thousand years.
This is my sig.
You are either unbelievably ignorant or a troll.
Now now, why can't he be both?
If a "western democracy" overthrew your nation's government and put in a despot, would your first thought be "hey kids, let's overthrow it and install a western democracy!!"
This thread contains lots of great perspectives on Ahmandinejad, election fraud, and the Iranian presidency. Unfortunately most of the world is missing the point.
I'd like to point that Ali Khamenei has been the supreme leader (dictator) of Iran for 20 years. During an EconTalk podcast on August 11 2008, expert Bruce Bueno de Mesquita comments that after interviewing over a dozen Iranian political specialists, his research concludes that Ahmandinejad is the 18th most powerful person in Iran.
The Iranian president is an important and powerful person in absolute terms. In relative terms it's a public relations office. So yes, election fraud was committed. Yes, their disinterest in concealing the fraud conveys the extent to which they believe it makes a difference.
However, everyone just take a deep breath, and understand that the electoral system and eligibility of candidates is up to the complete discretion of Ali Khamenei.
Except with the fact that the Iranians did actually overthrow the brutal despot that the US helped establish, and replaced him with what we see today?
AFAIK, the Iranians already had their chance to end tyranny and establish a democracy... but instead, they chose tyranny by different hands.
Of course that is a VAST over simplification.
If we include a little more detail it becomes far less clear-cut. For example, what happened was that the democratic reformers joined forces with the religious radicals because as separate groups they did not have enough power to overthrow the brutal despot. By now, through our own experiences, we (the US) ought to know that the philosophy of "Mine enemy's enemy is my friend" rarely works out in the long run. The democratic reformers in Iran, those of whom are still left alive, have learned that lesson too.
So after the revolution, the literally cut-throat religious radicals get the better of the democratic reformers and the country ends up trading one brutal regime for another. That's far from the country choosing tyranny in any sort of representation of the people's will.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It would seem so, wouldn't it? Perhaps you should at least try to see how this tragic situation could arise?
It began of course with decades of tyranny that fueled fundamentalist and Soviet-friendly views. But the revolution itself did not rest upon the different socialist fractions or the different religious fractions, neither was it the work of any ethnic group in particular. The revolution happened out of a desire to stop the tyranny, but a lot of people had not really contemplated what should be in its place.
That is why after the revolution the strongest established movement, the fundamentalist shia muslim fractions, could claim power. They had national networks in place to organize on a national scale. They got rid of the most important competition, the communists (thousands are believed to have been executed in front of their co-workers). They organized an election which looked democratic enough that gave them complete power.
What should the common Iranian do at this point? You have already risked your life to get rid of the pest of an oppressive regime with the support of the strongest army in the world. What is the point of trying to overthrow another oppressive regime without any form of organization of how the Iranian society should develop after another revolution?
You know, there may very well be a damn good point to continue the resistance, and Iranians do so in their own subtle ways every day. But you can't blame them for being cynical. I, however, can blame you for being cynical. These are people that need your moral support, not your ignorant judgments. Keep that in mind.
While I kinda sorta can go along with your general thoughts, you have plenty of details wrong:
WW1 was not about democracy. It was about getting-even and my-fleet-is-bigger-than-yours among European rulers.
A great motivations for the Germans leading up to WW2 was again getting-even. That aside, Germany had been a democracy since 1871, albeit with flaws and limitations.
Also, as far as WW2 is concerned. It was the Soviets, and primarily the Russians, who took down Nazi Germany. The US military did not play a significant role in Europe.
Meddling in the Middle East to keep the Soviets at bay is just too simple a view. Iraq (Kassem) and Iran (Mossadeq) had reasonably pro-western governments, before the US decided to topple them and put the Baath party and the Shah into power. This was mostly about oil, as is well documented now.
And, yes, as far as oil goes: does it not surprise you that of the 4 counties in the Middle East with the largest oil reserves, the US tightly controls 3 now (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) and is hostile toward Iran?
Note to modders: this post should obviously be +5, FUNNY not +5, Insightful. It is clearly sarcasm.
Oh, you mean its not sarcasm?
> Given this country brought an end to both World Wars and prevented the 3rd
You mean like in the 2nd world war where the Soviets crushed 3/4 of the Wermacht on the Eastern front before a single boat landed on Normandy's beaches?
> We're not malicious about it.
See modders? +5,Funny right there.
> If we were we would taken all the oil fields for ourselves. Which we could have done.
And in fact have done: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
> You forget history, my friend; among all the "dictators" of history, the USA is a teddy bear.
Among all the dictators of modern history, the US has installed or propped up at least half (with the Soviets accounting for most of the rest).
> Stop fussing, you have no idea how horrible life can be under a REAL superpower that isn't afraid to rampantly abuse their authority.
No my (clearly) American friend. It is YOU who have no idea what that life is like. The majority of the rest of the world is very well aware of what the US fist inside the IMF glove really feels like.
I didn't know you could win an argument by appending a "Period." after your thesis.
Actually the correct steps are:
* Present your thesis.
* Exclaim PERIOD!
* Clamp your hands to your ears and run away shouting "lalalalalalala cant hear you!", before any counter-argument can be made.
And there you go, argument won.
The Long Now Foundation
Actually, turn Tienanmen, the U.S. government and world intel agencies realized that if you really wanted to destabilize a government, you made sure the unkempt, disaffected masses HAD communications. Remember all the faxes coming out of China back then? I'd be willing to bet that British, American, Israelis and other interested countries are busting their humps making sure comms stay open so they can get the information out and allow Iranians the ability to organize.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
You would tell these protestors, many of whom were not alive during the revolution of '79, that they do not deserve to have their voiced heard because of choices their parents made?
The ex-Soviet countries have no reason to reject the US. Actually, the US are held in great esteem in a lot of former east bloc countries. It was pretty much the promised land. After all, the US were depicted as the land of the imperialist, capitalist thugs that oppress the working people, and if the average east bloc resident knew one thing, then that whatever the "official" channels tell him is a lie.
What many didn't know is that the opposite of a lie ain't necessarily the truth.
I wouldn't say that Iranians are hellbent on being islamist fanatics who want to live in a sharia state. Not every muslim is an islamist. Saying that is like claiming that every Christian believes in Young Earth Creationism or similar rubbish.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If we truly believe that democracy is desirable, then we ought to help them, or just STFU.
No, we shouldn't. We should meddle if they cry for help, or if their non-democrat government decides it is time to poke us with a sharp stick; otherwise, we should let the people decide what is best for them and not what we think it may be.
Our military was the 5th strongest and our airforce was the 3rd strongest. Iran was an awesome nation!.
Sorry, kid, there was no time when the Iranian airforce was the "3rd strongest". The USA and USSR were always #1 and #2, with Britain, France, China, Canada, perhaps Israel vying for #3. There were also a whole mess of Eastern European countries. Iran was never in the running.
Advice: on VPS providers
When you kill all of the secularists, you're left with two types of people - the religious, and the religious zealots.