Utah author finds Iran to be ever-evolving

[Babar]

Utah author finds Iran to be ever-evolving

[Babar]

Utah author finds Iran to be ever-evolving

Below the surface: Despite official bans, many young Iranians are in tune with American culture and
technology

By Ewa Wasilewska

Special to The Tribune

Editor's note: Ewa Wasilewska is an associate professor/lecturer of
anthropology at the University of Utah. "Ladies and gentlemen, we are
approaching Tehran Airport . . . please fasten your seatbelts."

Suddenly, in the Aeroflot Iranian airliner, there was a mist of breath
fresheners, and empty wine glasses quickly disappeared into the garbage.
Scarves found their way onto perfect Western haircuts of women who just
moments earlier were enjoying their conversations with fellow travelers.
Now, busy fastening their clothes, they transformed themselves into
something resembling the ideal of Muslim womanhood.

Welcome to the land of forbidden pleasures and regulated misery ? the
Islamic Republic of Iran.

Waiting nervously to flash my U.S. passport to enter the country for a
monthlong visit, I struggled to fix my black, shapeless chador with
safety pins to cover every inch of my body, down to properly hidden feet
in socks and sneakers. While nobody even blinked upon seeing my
passport, many were laughing at my futile efforts with the unfamiliar
clothing required by conservative mullahs.

Finally, an older Iranian woman whispered in English, "No need, look
around." Only a few women were wearing a chador, while the rest enjoyed
comfortable Western attire or an Iranian manteau (a light coat) over
jeans, some of them showing not only feet in fashionable sandals but
even ankles, and none of them tried to hide their hair completely.

Looking ridiculous in the crowd of Westernized women, for a moment, I
was cheering for the mullahs who claim authority from Allah and demand
strict obedience to their interpretation of Islamic law. Yet they
preside over a populace that openly or privately defies those laws. In a
world where satellite TV, the Internet, a free press, dancing and pop
music are forbidden, Iranians, in one way or another, are forcing their
government to accept the reality of the 21st century.

Take women's clothing. After hearing "a report about social vices"
presented by the Iranian chief of police, the mullahs are drafting
legislation to offer "a better costume [than a manteau] so that men and
women can easily choose their color" as long as it is "a full-length
loose-fitting costume" - with chadors still highly recommended.

Mohammad Taqi Rahbar, a member of Parliament, explained that many women
ignore already existing regulations forbidding "shape-revealing and
skimpy clothes . . . short-sleeved shirts and skimpy skirts and
trousers," so that trend must be stopped because "girls coming from
villages would learn" from female students who enter universities in
chadors but reveal "their bodies in the evening."

My new friend Homa, whom I met in the Cafe Naderi - famous for its
intellectual atmosphere but not for its hospitality to lone women who
are confined to a depressing back room - had a different explanation:
"Every time mullahs are in trouble, they regulate women's clothes."
And they are in trouble: not with the Victoria's Secret store in Tehran,
but with their own population that is growing tired of medieval rules
and the pervasive corruption.

Soon after arriving in Iran and wanting to let my American friends know
I was safe, I fought my way through city crowds to one of numerous
Internet cafes. I was welcomed warmly by the young people patiently
waiting in line for one of 10 operating computers - IBM clones - and
watching satellite TV. Puzzled, because both of these Western
"pleasures" are forbidden in Iran, I asked an older gentleman next to me
if he could explain.

"Yes, they are, but what can they do?" he replied motioning toward two
young mullahs typing furiously on their keyboards.

Not much.

Meeting people in cafes, restaurants and cheap hotel lobbies became my
habit for the  rest of the trip. I was especially fascinated by
"segregated places" where men occupied a nice space while families and
single women were crowded into a small, less cheerful section.

My favorite place was a restaurant in the Esfahan bazaar where tables
were neatly marked with arrows and signs in Persian, sitting "brothers"
on one side of the table and "sisters" across from them. This didn't
stop any mixing of "brothers" and "sisters" who were sitting wherever
they pleased, ready to strike up a conversation with anyone, in spite of
the blasting sound of what was supposed to be Iranian pop music.

By that time, I had tossed my chador in the trunk of my car, changed my
prayer headdress to a fashionable shawl, and was showing my blond hair
with every move of my head. Needless to say, I drew attention wherever I
went and was bombarded with questions.

Pantea, a 16-year-old girl, wanted to know whether I prefer Britney
Spears to Beyonce. I had no clue who the latter person was, but other
Iranian young people were more than happy to explain modern music to
me.

"We love American music and films," screamed university students at
Persepolis, a capital of the ancient Persian Empire and the pride of
many Iranians.

The students seemed to know more about American entertainment than I
did, even though Western music and films are forbidden in the
mullah-land. The mullahs' preferred form of "entertainment" is the
mourning of numerous saints and heroes for whom they build an
extravagant number of funeral shrines called imamzadehs. The irony is
that many of their occupants died as the result of the religious and
political conflicts that mark Iranian history.

"First, they [mullahs] kill people, then they build them an imamzadeh,"
explained a taxi driver. The American Embassy in Tehran seized in 1979
has become such an imamzadeh, known as the Den of Espionage.
Politically astute: While the mullahs demand absolute obedience from
Iranian citizens despite the democratic rights granted by Iran's
Constitution, they are not religious fanatics with little or no concept
of reality. They are clever politicians. They understand that "if you
cannot fight them, join them," so they are busy taking polls to get
reality checks.

Instead of trying to arrest the estimated 7 million Internet users and
tens of thousands of satellite TV users, the mullahs are selling
Internet lines and setting up cable TV systems, regulating both in the
process. By imposing the same rules of censorship on Internet publishers
and writers as they do on newspapers and other publications, the mullahs
control the media, blocking unwanted sites and imprisoning and/or
flogging those spreading news and information not in the best "interests
of the Islamic ruling system."

One way or another, the mullahs always seem to make money: whether
collecting thousands of "Khomeinis" (a bank note worth 10,000 rials, or
about $1.25) from inside the shrines or selling Western CDs or DVDs in
shops decorated with paintings of earthly leaders of the Iranian
theocracy, starting with Prophet Mohammed and finishing with Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, the president and the Expediency Council.
Those who really rule the country, the self-appointed Guardian Council
of 12 hard-line clerics, don't have their portraits plastered anywhere,
happy with rewriting Islamic law to solidify their power and wealth. In
the meantime, over 40 percent of the population lives below the poverty
line in a country where $300 per month is considered to be sufficient
income for a small family.

Sipping my tea, I enjoyed discussions with the Iranians willing to
ignore the law against fraternization with Westerners. "Vote for  Kerry"
was the most common political advice coming mainly from people who
boycotted their February 2004 election in protest against the Guardian
Council's decision to ban 2,500 reformist candidates from running for
office.

"Why Kerry?" I asked.

"Bush bad; he hates Iran. He attacked Iraq; we are next." However, in
the eyes of many Iranians, they both represent imperial dreams of
America, with Bush being perceived as a strong supporter of Israel while
Kerry is put into "the French category," someone easily ignored. So
Americans are either "evil" or "stupid." Although few in Iran really
believe that the United States would attack Iran, the mullahs continue
to disseminate the news that such an invasion is a strong possibility
because Iran, under Islamic guidance, has emerged as one of the leading
powers in the world. Consequently, they say, Iran must be prepared for
its enemies.

Looking over their shoulders: At least $4.3 billon (3.3 percent of gross
national product) is budgeted for military expenses annually, and more
funds are appropriated to nuclear programs. Iranians believe they need
them because they are in proximity to those who already have nuclear
weapons: Israel, Russia, Pakistan and North Korea. Thus, the mullahs
will continue to ignore international objections to Iran's development
of nuclear weapons because, as Vali, my guide, asked, "What are they
[world powers] going to do to us?"

The mullahs are not afraid of an American invasion and have no respect
for the European powers, such as France, who are busy counting their
profits from trade with Iran, a much less competitive market since the
United States imposed its trade embargo. The only real threat to the
mullahs' plans is the possibility that Israel might bomb Iranian nuclear
facilities as it did in Iraq in 1981.

I pointed out that American soldiers had captured former Iraqi president
Saddam Hussein. Between  1980 and 1988, Iran fought a bloody, indecisive
war with Saddam over disputed territory. Stories about atrocities
committed by the former Iraqi leader are still part of Iranian life.
Nearly every family has loved ones buried as martyrs.

As a result, they want Saddam to die a long, torturous death, as Vali,
with tears in his eyes and hatred in his voice, expressed: "I am not a
violent man, but I would tear out his liver and eat it watching him
die."

The idea of Saddam going to trial doesn't appeal too much to Iranians
who believe that it will be a farce.

"Good. You caught Saddam, but where is he now?" asked one.

According to the Iranian media, in July Saddam had a stroke and
near-death experience predicted by his lawyers three months in advance.
Iranians were convinced the Americans killed Saddam and are now busy
training his body double to testify in court in order to cover up U.S.
involvement in the Iraq-Iran war.

My departure was a sad day: I was leaving behind not the "Axis of Evil,"
Bush's designation for Iran, but a country with a glorious past, an
uncertain future and a populace unhappy and frustrated with their
government - and with the United States.

[ScutMonkey]

Sad, fascinating, and amusing all that the same time.  

Bush = Evil
Kerry = Stupid
France = Easily ignored
US = Coming to kill us

And why?

quote:
Instead of trying to arrest the estimated 7 million Internet users and tens of thousands of satellite TV users, the mullahs are selling Internet lines and setting up cable TV systems, regulating both in the process. By imposing the same rules of censorship on Internet publishers and writers as they do on newspapers and other publications, the mullahs control the media, blocking unwanted sites and imprisoning and/or flogging those spreading news and information not in the best "interests of the Islamic ruling system."

As much as I complain about American media, we can say whatever we want.  Rush Limbaugh to Al Frankin.  You have a voice and someone wants to listen to it, there ain't much the government can do about it and that's exactly how it should be.

I watched The Daily Show do a joke about Bush jacking off horses and enjoying it the other night.  You say that about a Mullah in Iran and you die.

[Babar]

Did you even read the article? Or pull out two sentences and make a rash judgement?

[Wunderbolt]

I did not read the whole article, but it's interesting having watched a movie from Iran recently (called "A moment of innocence"). I recommend that everyone should watch at least one film from Iran, just to get a picture of what's going on, however cencored it may be.

[iamjack]

Why Iran?  Maybe because theyre not in bed with the US.  What about religious fanaticism in Saudi Arabia?  Shouldnt the US prove its trying to make a difference by popping a cap in SAs 'ass' before Iran?

Read this before you all start complaining...

[ric]

The spread of democracy/true freedom is making them and all their co-horts extremely nervous
With the continued wave of freedom in the area indicates one thing to me... is that THEIR DAYS ARE NUMBERED

[Babar]

Ric, read the article. Don't be so focused on the Governing Council. Read about the people.

[ric]

The hard line was towards the Saudis This Al-Qaeda + Saudi *official* "underground" complicity BS has to end...though if it were up to me I'd lay the smack down on the Saudi royal family

[ScutMonkey]

I did read the article, Babar, and many like it.  Here's the overriding theme:

These people have no idea what we're like or why we do things because they're informed by a government controlled media.  

That makes their opinions suspect, to say the least.  My point was only that if you want to dissent in the US, UK, France, Germany, etc... you are perfectly free to do so and your government can't do anything about it for the most part.  

Why is this so important?  Why do I care about this part of the equation so much?  Because Iranians obviously love Western culture if that article is any indication.  What they don't understand, apparently, is it's our freedoms which allow that culture to exist.  When people in this area are asked why the US is evil, they give vague answers about the US being the great Satan.  They're contrived answers from the mouths of their mullahs.  I guess a better way to explain it is that it's like trying to come up with a scientific theory without being allowed access of any of the information which would lead you to valid conclusions.  I work with alot of Indian and Pakistanis at my job and it's very interesting to see how their cultures almost mutate in our society.  The differences between the generations from their parent's homelands (India) to their children's homelands (the US) is often stark.  They retain their language, their religion, and some of their customs, but talk to those kids about moving back to India or Pakistan?  Not f'ing happening.  Then you watch what's happening in India with things like Bollywood and their reception to our outsourcing and how it's changed their cities.  

I don't think they'll ever want to be us.  I hope they never want to be us.  What I think would happen if they were given free access to information about us is they'd stop hating us.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
Did you even read the article? Or pull out two sentences and make a rash judgement?

Also, haven't you realize after reading these forums for as long as you have that two people can read the exact same thing and see totally different things?  I'm very aware of this fact.  I frequently see how everyone else interprets an article and I have to reread it to figure out where in the world they got their take from.  I usually see it, I disagree with it, but I see it.

[Babar]

While I can see why you would make blanket statements about the reasons Iranians do what they do, I have to respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions. Out of my father's entire family, he is the only one who has expressed a desire to stay here in the U.S. permanently.

His dad, sister, and rest of the extended family have no interest in moving to the U.S. His dad has been here several times, and always looks forward to returning to Tehran. His sister wants to come, but would not want to stay permanently.

I cannot expound on the example of my father's family and apply it to all Iranians. Because as I said, my father did choose to come to this country and stay. But many others choose not to come.

And in reference to your comment about the government-controlled media, could you please read this blog?

"There are now 1200 blogs in Persian. Writing in The Weekly Standard, Eve Tushnet describes the role they're playing in inspiring the Islamic world.

Iranian women are especially enthusiastic bloggers. Shift reports that one woman, going by the pseudonym "Lady Sun," sparked a debate about sex roles in Iran based on her discussion of a man who groped her while she was entering a taxi. One man used her "comments" feature to ask what she thought of hijab, the form of veiling required by Iranian law. Women readers described their frustration with men, and their sense of oppression; perhaps more surprisingly, one male reader confessed that he had not realized that the law requiring hijab "has had a negative impact on society."

One Iranian woman blogger told the BBC, "Women in Iran cannot speak out frankly because of our Eastern culture, and there are some taboos just for women, such as talking about sex or the right to choose your partner." But she, like Lady Sun, has heard from men who say her blog helped change their view of women in Iran."

Could such blogging activity exist if the Governing Council was truly bent on stiffling independent thought among the populace?

[Babar]

Please note I am in no way expressing support for the Governing Council. I think they need to leave. But I am saying that the situation is not as bad as many are saying. Iran has been gradually moving towards democracy on its own.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
While I can see why you would make blanket statements about the reasons Iranians do what they do, I have to respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions. Out of my father's entire family, he is the only one who has expressed a desire to stay here in the U.S. permanently.

His dad, sister, and rest of the extended family have no interest in moving to the U.S. His dad has been here several times, and always looks forward to returning to Tehran. His sister wants to come, but would not want to stay permanently.

I cannot expound on the example of my father's family and apply it to all Iranians. Because as I said, my father did choose to come to this country and stay. But many others choose not to come.

And in reference to your comment about the government-controlled media, could you please read this blog?

"There are now 1200 blogs in Persian. Writing in The Weekly Standard, Eve Tushnet describes the role they're playing in inspiring the Islamic world.

Iranian women are especially enthusiastic bloggers. Shift reports that one woman, going by the pseudonym "Lady Sun," sparked a debate about sex roles in Iran based on her discussion of a man who groped her while she was entering a taxi. One man used her "comments" feature to ask what she thought of hijab, the form of veiling required by Iranian law. Women readers described their frustration with men, and their sense of oppression; perhaps more surprisingly, one male reader confessed that he had not realized that the law requiring hijab "has had a negative impact on society."

One Iranian woman blogger told the BBC, "Women in Iran cannot speak out frankly because of our Eastern culture, and there are some taboos just for women, such as talking about sex or the right to choose your partner." But she, like Lady Sun, has heard from men who say her blog helped change their view of women in Iran."

Could such blogging activity exist if the Governing Council was truly bent on stiffling independent thought among the populace?

I think it is largely as bad as it is said to be.  If it was not, this woman wouldn't write under a psuedonym now would she?  That being said, the GC can't catch everyone and they're smart enough to leave just enough alone to keep people from feeling completely suppressed.  There is a difference between suppression and control and the Iranian GC controls their media.  They make sure there are no popular loose cannons out there advocating anarchy and a destruction of the GC itself.  Do you see that in the US?  No.  UK?  No.  France?  No.  When you see something like indymedia.org praising the death of US soldiers and calling them baby killers, you realize things here are quite different because the government doesn't control our press.  It will complain, whine, moan, and lash out at it, but it won't clamp down on it and kill people for speaking their minds.  If the US did, the editorial staff of the NY Times would be decimated, hehe.

Let's also not forget that the Ayatollah is dead.  There's no template for dictatorship, but generally speaking, you need a charismatic leader if you're going to exert totally authority over a people.  I don't see anyone on the Iranian GC like that, so they're having to do what they can to keep things from bursting at the seams.  If a couple people make blogs that almost nobody reads and it has no effect on the general populace, so what.  Let it go.  I doubt it's a battle worth fighting in their eyes.  1200 blogs is a far cry from the 10s of millions of blogs which exist in the US.  

Secondly, I very, very rarely meet someone who's left their home country because they hated it.  It's their home; it's their homeland.  They generally leave because they can't afford to live there and need a better life for themselves and their family.  If they could stay in their home country and live the way they could live in the US (or Canada or France or England...), they'd never come here.  This is why people are flooding across the Mexico/US border, but only visit from Canada.  (And this is why they fly the Mexican flag in front of their homes, not the Ameircan one.)  I don't expect Iranians to be any different.  There are more important things than money and those things are family, friends, community, history, tradition, religion, and the like.  Only when you need money to support the rest of these are they forced to leave.  I suspect that has as much or more to do with your family's decisions to stay there than a love of their government.  Can you see him saying something like, "I'm Iranian, so I will live in Iran."  Wouldn't suprise me in the least.  If the rest of your family can make due with what they have there and are content, why would they leave everything to come here?

There's a huge difference between Iranian government and Iranian ethnicity and the ethnicity is what makes people tolerate a government they don't like and defend it from foreign invaders even if they hate it.  It's why the Russians were so proud of their WW2 victories, even as they feared and loathed Stalin.  This is why Iraqis still don't feel comfortable with us.  Iraq is for Iraqis, not Americans, regardless of how much we may have helped them to create an opportunity for better lives.  It's also partially why I'm still not convinced and hoping against hope that you can actually build a democracy from the outside.  Will the Iraqis ever really feel it's their government if we helped them make it?  It's one of the major potential downfalls of the Neo Con argument and Iraq is a very important litmus test for them.

And none of this even gets into the sticky conversation of religion.  Western Judeo-Christianity vs. Middle Eastern Islam.  There are plenty of American who don't believe this should be any part of this, but I guarantee you plenty of muslims do.  I'd love to have a conversation with your uncle about Western culture and it's affect on their women and their youth.  Far too frequently I get to know Muslims and Hindus here at work as Americans up until I talk to them about their children.  That's when everything changes and all of their traditions come to play and when all of their misgivings about the US begin to show.  Freedom is a double edged sword and sometimes they don't like how it cuts.

[Babar]

quote:
I think it is largely as bad as it is said to be. If it was not, this woman wouldn't write under a psuedonym now would she?

www.livejournal.com--can you please point out to me how many bloggers there post WITHOUT pseudonyms? Pseudonyms by themselves are not an indicator of oppression.

quote:
Let's also not forget that the Ayatollah is dead.

I hate to say this, but how much do you really know about Iran? "The Ayatollah" is alive--his name is Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini. If you were talking about Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, yes, he is dead, but that doesn't mean "The Ayatollah is dead." That's like saying "The President is dead."

quote:
1200 blogs is a far cry from the 10s of millions of blogs which exist in the US.

A per capita income of $1640 (Iranian per capita) is also a far cry from $40,100 (US). If you want to talk about economics?

quote:
Secondly, I very, very rarely meet someone who's left their home country because they hated it. It's their home; it's their homeland. They generally leave because they can't afford to live there and need a better life for themselves and their family.

So is it our job to hate their country for them and invade it for them?

quote:
I'd love to have a conversation with your uncle about Western culture and it's affect on their women and their youth.

Father, not uncle. And for the most part, Iranians who move to the U.S. and become citizens, and have children, have children who are exposed to Western culture. They will have knowledge of Iranian culture but for the most part their children will follow Western traditions. To give you a very base example--they will eat at tables instead of on the floor.

quote:
Freedom is a double edged sword and sometimes they don't like how it cuts.

Again, that's a question of culture, not of politics. You cannot force a country to alter its culture. Only the inhabitants of that country can, and it is usually a gradual process. As I have stated before, the people of Iran are gradually moving, on their own, towards a more open society. This is something that not even the Guardian Council can stop. Interfering with that progress poses the risk of reversing it.

[ric]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar

quote:



Again, that's a question of culture, not of politics. You cannot force a country to alter its culture. Only the inhabitants of that country can, and it is usually a gradual process. As I have stated before, the people of Iran are gradually moving, on their own, towards a more open society. This is something that not even the Guardian Council can stop. Interfering with that progress poses the risk of reversing it.

Don't be naive. They still have this sh*tty attitude

You didn't really think that they'd stop  

Bottom line...In my opinion Iran will never change their goofy ways unless there is a major uprising from the inside supported by the West both politically and militarily.

[Babar]

quote:
Don't be naive. They still have this sh*tty attitude

Ric, really, please. The locations of Iran's nuclear facilities are well known, and can be monitored for activity. Surely you know that our intelligence services and our military are capable of detecting levels of nuclear activity, right? Besides, the Russians are helping them build a nuclear power plant, not a nuclear weapons enrichment facility. That much has been proven.

And besides, I don't understand why it is OK for Pakistan, China, North Korea and Israel to have nuclear material producing capability, but Iran is singled out?

If you really want to talk about nonproliferation, let's start with the United States, maybe? Ever heard of the "nuclear penetrator?" Low yield nuclear weapons? What happened to "Do unto others as you wish to have them do unto you?"

[Babar]

quote:
Bottom line...In my opinion Iran will never change their goofy ways unless there is a major uprising from the inside supported by the West both politically and militarily.

Politically, perhaps. Militarily, no. Definitely not. Pandora's box comes to mind.

[ric]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar

quote:



I hate to say this, but how much do you really know about Iran? "The Ayatollah" is alive--his name is Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini. If you were talking about Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, yes, he is dead, but that doesn't mean "The Ayatollah is dead." That's like saying "The President is dead."

I believe you are referring to this dude

The big ass chip on his shoulder doesn't seem to help

"The capitalists have forged dominance over the mass media and the press and there is no real democracy in the Western states proving that the Western models of democracy could not work," the Supreme Leader said..

lol...Just wtf is this guy smokin??

[Babar]

quote:
lol...Just wtf is this guy smokin??

And to that I respond by pointing you back to an earlier post of mine:

quote:
Ric, read the article. Don't be so focused on the Governing Council. Read about the people.

Don't be so hung up on the Ayatollah. The original post was referencing the advancement of Iranian SOCIETY not their government.

[ric]

What I smoke is purely for medicinal purposes only , but what I would really like to see is more pot-stirrin

[Timster]

Iran had positive exposure to Western culture before the religious takeover, and after 25 or so years, I doubt the mullahs have turned that many people to think otherwise.  Along with satellite TV and internet, magazines, newspapers and music CD's still find their way into the country.

[Babar]

quote:
I would really like to see is more pot-stirrin

Thank you for admitting that the people of Iran do engage in pot-stirring. I remember someone saying earlier that pot-stirring got you killed.

But Timster is right. Iranians have an insatiable appetite for Western culture. That is unavoidable and there is nothing mullahs can do about it.

[sina3001]

Yeah my grandfather goes to Iran for a few months every year and he says that a lot has changed over that past few years. Women are walking around with a lot more of themselves exposed than what is technically allowed by law ( although it would be very conservative compared to our standards ). Even though the women have to cover up in public, at home it's a completely different story. When girls go to parties they will wear their party clothes underneath their outside clothes. So when they get to someone's house, they will take off their outside clothes. Their party clothes are generally the latest European styles, whatever is the newest and most cutting edge at the time.

Although the Mullahs are very conservative and use religion as an excuse for everything, there isn't much they can really do. My guess is that either the US will invade Iran and cause another revolution (downside: will probably be messy), or the young population will do it themselves eventually (a better route in my opinion). One way or another things will change for the better.


EDIT: typo

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar

www.livejournal.com--can you please point out to me how many bloggers there post WITHOUT pseudonyms? Pseudonyms by themselves are not an indicator of oppression.

You're comparing a woman's serious sexual discussion site in Iran to the ramblings of largely pubescent teens.  I'm quite familiar with Livejournal, because I have one.  Why don't you compare it to something a bit more relevant like The Daily Kos or The Drudge report.  

quote:
I hate to say this, but how much do you really know about Iran? "The Ayatollah" is alive--his name is Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini. If you were talking about Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, yes, he is dead, but that doesn't mean "The Ayatollah is dead." That's like saying "The President is dead."

Forgive me.  It's my western biases shining through.  You and I know exactly who I was talking about and you know why?  Because Khomeini was a strong charismatic force who picture the world STILL remembers on site these many years later.  Khameini is not that kind of man and that was my point.  

quote:
A per capita income of $1640 (Iranian per capita) is also a far cry from $40,100 (US). If you want to talk about economics?

Are you sure you do?  With all that potential oil revenue, it seems Iran could do better than that, but guess why it doesn't?

quote:
So is it our job to hate their country for them and invade it for them?

Do you think for one minute I hate Iraq and Iraqis?  War means a hell of a lot more than anger, hate, and killing people for fun and money.

quote:
Father, not uncle. And for the most part, Iranians who move to the U.S. and become citizens, and have children, have children who are exposed to Western culture. They will have knowledge of Iranian culture but for the most part their children will follow Western traditions. To give you a very base example--they will eat at tables instead of on the floor.

I meant your uncle because it's your uncle who went back right?  He's the one I'd be interested in talking to because I'd be interested to find out if part of the reason why he wants to live there and have his family there is because he doesn't want his relatives to be exposed to the potentially negative sides of our culture.

quote:
Again, that's a question of culture, not of politics. You cannot force a country to alter its culture. Only the inhabitants of that country can, and it is usually a gradual process. As I have stated before, the people of Iran are gradually moving, on their own, towards a more open society. This is something that not even the Guardian Council can stop. Interfering with that progress poses the risk of reversing it.

1. Even you concede it can happen quickly sometimes.
2. Culture is politics.  

Especially in a place like Iran or any other Theocratic nation, because Politics is nothing more than the interrelations between people and culture has EVERYTHING to do with how they interrelate.  Even in the US, how many of our most volatile debates revolve around social issues based on our culture.  The Culture Wars.  Abortion is wrong to many because it's murder in God's eyes.  What's more cultural than that?  Gay Marriage?  Cultural.  Drugs?  Cultural.  Death Penalty?  Cultural.

Iran is moving towards a more open society because their government doesn't have a choice.  However, all it takes is one charismatic leader to come into power like Khomeini did for the whole thing to revert back.  But I do see your point and agree with it to a certain extent.  Can you see someone like that coming into power and buring the US Constitution up to form a whole new society in the US?  Can you see someone like that coming into power like that in the UK or France or Germany?  Why not?  Because our cultural traditions would never allow it, not because a government can't be thrown on the scrap heap.  That part happens on a regular basis throughout the world.  The people of our Democratic nations just wouldn't put up with it.  Especially here in the US.  Obviously, the difference is Iran's never known a government like that, much less a government like that for several continuous generations, so I do understand your point about how it will take time to develop it.  Frankly, it's my biggest concern about Iraq, as I've stated before.  We're actually testing that theory right now in Iraq and it would be something very monumental if Iraq succeeds.

However, I think it's criminal not to go in and stop a genocidal dictator, which is why Iraq is so different from Iran.  It's also why I said in several of the debates BEFORE we went to Iraq that I didn't care whether they had WMDs or not, on humanitarian reasons alone, we should have gone into Iraq.  If you have time to dig through all the detritus of our Pre-Iraq war posts, it's buried in there somewhere.