6/16    For those who want to push democracy worldwide and bitch Iran
        being member of "axis of evil,"  Do you even realize that Iran
        has a very lively democracy and they are holding their presidential
        election this Friday?
        \_ anyone remotely familiar with the gov of iran knows that the
           theocratic body can over rule any decision of elected
           representatives at any time.  so either you're ignorant
           or a troll.
        \_ The Democaracy is very weak in Iran. The ultimate authority still
           lies with the mullahs. The president is very weak and mullahs
           get to decide who can run for a seat in Iranian parlament.
           Last year, they prevented a couple of thousand candidates from
           running from not being faithful enough to the priciples of their
           running for not being faithful enough to the priciples of their
           revolution. The mullahs also can pretty much veto anything.
        \_ Hahaha.  Do you realize that people who wish to run in the
        \_ Hahaha.  Do you realize that the only people who run in the
           elections must be approved by the mullahs?  Imagine if Bush got
           to decide who ran in all the elections, state, city, senate,
           house, etc. Would you call that a "lively democracy?" (Oh, and
           Bush has been made supreme leader, he cannot be taken from
           office.  No elections for him.)
           \_ it's a different form of democracy.  Why don't you bitch
              about Britian's upper house are appointed?
              \_ Freedom is slavery!  Despotism is democracy!
           house, etc. Would you call that a "lively democracy?"
              \_ kngharv is funny.
              \_ AFAIK, the house of lords does not directly influence
                 gov policy (except as relates to certain judicial appeals).
              \_ It's _not_ a "different kind of democracy".  By your
                 definition, the Soviet Union was a "different kind of
                 democracy", as was the US before letting women and blacks
                 vote.  Newspapers are regularly shut down, people beaten,
                 imprisoned and killed for voicing anti-government opinions,
                 an unelected self-perpetuating system (council of guardians,
                 supreme leader) has the possibility of vetoing all electoral
                 candidates and laws, and the revolutionary guard/interior
                 ministry holds the implied threat of violence over everyone's
                 head.  But hey, I guess Zimbabwe is a "different kind of
                 democracy" too.  -John
                 \_ threat of violence, though illegal by Red Cross standard,
                    is sactioned by USA and routinely praticed.
                 \_ these are human right issue, which is independent from
                    the issue of democracy.  Iran has supreme leader,
                    USA has electral college and life-term supreme court
                    judges appointed by the president.    I am simply pointing
                    this out because Americans hate current Iranian regime,
                    and we often ignoring the fact that  Iran has one of
                    the most mature democracy in the Middle East.
                    \_ hehe. -- ilyas
                    \_ "mature"?  You are comparing to Syria, Egypt and
                       Saudi Arabia.  That's not a challenge.  Yes, the US
                       have lacked sound judgment in dealing with some aspects
                       of Iran.  That said, how do you treat a regime, one
                       part of which is strongly reformist but impotent, the
                       other of which openly sponsors terrorism and other
                       nasties?  Plus, your comparison to the US beggars
                       belief--the Supreme Court is appointed by an elected
                       official, its members approved by other elected
                       officials.  That said, the threat of violence is NOT
                       separate from the idea of democracy--democracy means,
                       essentially, one man one vote--if said man is
                       intimidated, or his vote fraudulently discounted, or
                       his elected officials rendered irrelevant, he is not
                       living in a democracy.  What is this, ChiCom Troll
                       goes Middle East?  -John
        \_ Democracy and freedom are relevant to the people when they have
           enough food, water, shelter, and stability in the community.
           In another word, most Middle Easterners don't really give a shit
           about freedom at this point since they don't even have enough basic
           necessities to even think about freedom. Americans talks about
           freedom as if it were the greatest thing on earth, and they're
           right because they already have basic necessities for life.
           However, freedom is not for everyone on this planet, especially
           for people who cannot even begin to think about freedom. You can't
           hand freedom to people and expect them to embrace it. People have
           to have basic necessities, and it is then that you can begin to
           talk about freedom and democracy. Giving freedom to the Iraqi
           people is like Microsoft donating billions of dollars worth of
           Windows XP licenses to starving African kids.
           \_ Interestingly, prosperity in the West developed in direct
              proportion to political freedom of the general populace, and
              the merchant and craftsman classes in particular.  Feudal
              serfs will not create prosperity. -- ilyas
              \_ is it also a coincident that all the prosperous
                 Western democracies were Imperial Power of 19th century?
                 \_ This is simply not true.  How about Scandinavian countries?
                    Prosperity enabled imperialism, not the other way around.
                      -- ilyas
                    Also, some countries that were neither prosperous, nor
                    'progressive' politically were imperialist (Russia).
                    I am calling Russia imperialist despite the fact that its
                    colonies were technically on a contiguous land mass with
                    the 'mainland.' This didn't really change the familiar
                    dynamic of imperialism.  Prosperity enabled imperialism
                    in the West, not the other way around.  -- ilyas
           \_ I have been saying that all along and no one listened.
              If you travel to China and look at their human right problem
              more closely, you will find that while political and religious
              dissidents get most of attentions, it is the human right of
              the dirt poor which are been routinely violated on a massive
              scale.  Given the dire economic circumstances, those dirt
              poor's human right are being violated in USA as well (e.g.
              homeless folks in People's Park).  The only differences
              between China and USA, is that China has 300 million of those
              who are at least as poor as Dwellers of People's Park.
              \_ I agree with the pp, (people need food and security
                 before they can really use freedom), but I don't really
                 agree with you.  You're making a pretty tenuous connection
                 between "The poors' human rights are routinely violated,"
                 and "prosperity a human right."  At least, I think that's
                 what you're saying.
                 \_ next time, check out how police evict homeless people
                    on the street, you will understand what do I mean.
                    \_ For my edification, please explain how exactly it is
                       possible to `evict someone on the street.' -dans
                       \_ He may be talking about the state-sponsored (or at
                          least done with the collusion of corrupt officials)
                          beatings and evictions of poor squatters in favor
                          of new factories or luxury homes.  -John
                          \_ I think the squatting phenomenon you're referring
                             to is much more prevalent in Europe, though I
                             have seen a handful of isolated incidents in the
                             New York area.  Regardless, `evict someone on the
                             street' still doesn't parse in any meaningful
                             way. -dans
                             \_ No, it doesn't exist at all here, nor do I
                                believe it's occurred recently in the US (or
                                in any civilized country.)  You are probably
                                referring to squatters who occupy buildings,
                                which sometimes ends up in a violent eviction.
                                Minor semantic difference, but these guys
                                usually squat as a form of protest, knowing
                                that the landlord will try to assert his claim
                                at some point in the future.  I was obliquely
                                referring to this riot in China last week:
                                http://tinyurl.com/dxrbh  Although to be fair,
                                they weren't even squatters, and similar
                                things have happened in Malaysia.  I suppose
                                op was talking about cops telling homeless
                                people to "move along".  -John
           \_ To me your argument seems to state that unless people have
              the necessities (food, water, shelter, &c.) freedom and
              democracy are irrelevant (or at least unnecessary)
              If this is true, why not round up all the people who don't
              have the necessities and stick them in a camp where someone
              provides all of these things to them?
              Of course the camp would be subject to the external control
              of the people providing the necessities and an individual
              in the camp would have no alternative but to live by the
              rules of the external parties.
              The question then is when will a man in the camp be deemed
              capable of having freedom? If the answer is when they have
              the "necessities", then I am led to ask, who decides when
              they have the "necessities" - can the people in the camp
              decide they have got enough and then opt for freedom or
              will the get freedom when the "enlightened" protectors
              decide it is appropriate?
              I think that it is apparent that they will never be given
              Freedom b/c they implicitly bargained it away in exchange
              for physical comfort. Knowing this, it would be wrong to
              give someone physical comfort before freedom.
        \_ Only to the left is the largest state sponsor of terror besides
           the Soviets over the past 3 decades a misunderstood democracry.
           the Soviets over the past 3 decades a misunderstood democracy.
           I'm sure the Lebanese feel just terrible about the
           misunderstanding.
           \_ huh?
              \_ exactly.