Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 19, 2018, 03:09:48 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 102
101  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: How will each party view Russia post-Trump? on: January 14, 2018, 09:10:06 pm
I can easily see the Democrats taking a hardline stance against Russia (similar to the Republican Party during the Cold War era) and the Republicans adopting a pro-Russia policy (due to the fact that Putin has framed himself as a defender of Christianity and traditional values). I can easily see the Democratic Party leadership supporting policies such as breaking off diplomatic ties with Russia, implementing an arms embargo against Russia, subjecting Russia to a sustained naval blockade, supporting the expansion of NATO to include countries such as Ukraine and Georgia, and expanding US efforts to remove the Putin regime from power.
102  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who was/is the worst President in U.S. History? on: January 08, 2018, 08:28:57 am
Out of the Presidents listed:

1. James Buchanan
2. Franklin Pierce
3. Millard Fillmore
4. Warren Harding
5. Herbert Hoover (in addition to being an ineffective President, Hoover was a bigot and pushed the Republican Party to adopt an early version of the “Southern Strategy”)
6. Richard Nixon
7. George W. Bush (Bush was at least an honorable person despite being an ineffective President)

It’s too early to judge Donald Trump, but I feel that hisorians will rank him in the bottom 5 or 10 on their lists of US Presidents.
103  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Kim Kardashian as Attorney General? on: January 08, 2018, 08:20:09 am
How about no.

I wouldn't even vote to confirm her if literally every other human being who is even remotely qualified for the job died, leaving her as the last possible option.
104  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Top ten reasons that you are not a Republican. on: January 06, 2018, 12:28:48 pm
1. I don't like the parties themselves.
2. I disagree with them on more issues than I agree with them on.
105  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Protests in Iran on: January 01, 2018, 08:04:17 am
Whenever there is any kind of mass protest in Iran (especially the "Green" movement protests from 2009-2011), I wonder if the end is near for the current regime in power. The Iranian people never asked for a theocratic regime after the overthrow of the Shah...it just so happened that the followers of Khomenei were the most visible and organized compared to the pro-democracy advocates and communists. I am of the opinion that the people will eventually rise up and overthrow their current government, it's only a matter of time. But, it is hard to say when protests like these end up creating a domino effect that takes down the entire government (like 1979).

Hopefully sooner rather than later. If a liberal, pro-democracy regime takes over, then we can start talking about restoring good relations with Iran.

It's amazing to think that Iran and Israel had fairly good relations until 1979 considering how poor relations are right now. If I am not mistaken, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel (after Turkey). I took a Persian history class in college and I remember a discussion on how Israel and Iran were actually natural allies at one point because of their mutual distrust of Arabs...

Well, Iran was certainly not a pro-democracy regime before 1979. They had even fewer freedoms then.
I agree 100%. The Shah of Iran was one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of the 20th Century. Some of the more notable crimes committed by the Shah include his killing of 160,000 innocent Iranians between 1963 and 1978, ordering agencies such as SAVAK to bayonet any woman caught wearing the Hijab or other religious attire, suppressing freedom of speech, torturing thousands of political prisoners using the most heinous methods imaginable, and forming alliances with enemy nations such as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. As such, the Shahs overthrow was logical, justified, and came 100% from the Iranian people without any outside intervention.

There are no countries that are objectively enemies of another country. If you form an alliance with a country its no longer your enemy. It may in some cases be an untrustworthy ally, but its not an enemy.
The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK have always been against the interests of Iran and have sought to subjugate the Iranian people for decades, so I consider them to be the true enemies of Iran.

Utter nonsense. The true enemy of any country are people within their borders who don't respect them. The Shah was preferable to this Islamic cesspool, but was hardly angelic himself.

Iran has proven that it can be secular and democratic via its people and it needs to be returned to the international community. One of the world's oldest and well-respected communities does not need people like you shilling for the Islamic regime.
Whenever there is any kind of mass protest in Iran (especially the "Green" movement protests from 2009-2011), I wonder if the end is near for the current regime in power. The Iranian people never asked for a theocratic regime after the overthrow of the Shah...it just so happened that the followers of Khomenei were the most visible and organized compared to the pro-democracy advocates and communists. I am of the opinion that the people will eventually rise up and overthrow their current government, it's only a matter of time. But, it is hard to say when protests like these end up creating a domino effect that takes down the entire government (like 1979).

Hopefully sooner rather than later. If a liberal, pro-democracy regime takes over, then we can start talking about restoring good relations with Iran.

It's amazing to think that Iran and Israel had fairly good relations until 1979 considering how poor relations are right now. If I am not mistaken, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel (after Turkey). I took a Persian history class in college and I remember a discussion on how Israel and Iran were actually natural allies at one point because of their mutual distrust of Arabs...

Well, Iran was certainly not a pro-democracy regime before 1979. They had even fewer freedoms then.
I agree 100%. The Shah of Iran was one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of the 20th Century. Some of the more notable crimes committed by the Shah include his killing of 160,000 innocent Iranians between 1963 and 1978, ordering agencies such as SAVAK to bayonet any woman caught wearing the Hijab or other religious attire, suppressing freedom of speech, torturing thousands of political prisoners using the most heinous methods imaginable, and forming alliances with enemy nations such as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. As such, the Shahs overthrow was logical, justified, and came 100% from the Iranian people without any outside intervention.

There are no countries that are objectively enemies of another country. If you form an alliance with a country its no longer your enemy. It may in some cases be an untrustworthy ally, but its not an enemy.
The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK have always been against the interests of Iran and have sought to subjugate the Iranian people for decades, so I consider them to be the true enemies of Iran.
Finally someone is telling the truth, Yes Iran has its problems, but compared to most other Muslim countries it’s relatively Free and Democratic (women can vote their for example), and America and Israel have no right to undermine and destroy their country by supporting violent protests and making up a fake Nuclear threat in order to have an excuse to bomb them. Finally, it’s mighty hypocritical for America to condemn countries for cracking down on protesters, because if the Republican government in the United States ever faced the types of mass demonstrations Iran’s government has faced, I could assure you they would have Tanks and Soldiers gunning people down in the street without a second thought.
I agree 100%. I am not saying that the Iranian government is perfect, but it is arguably the most stable country in the region, is a democracy on paper (albeit an “illiberal” democracy in practice) and has a FAR better human rights record when compared to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States that are constantly praised for their “progressive” nature by the US and Israel.

What The US and it’s allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK have done to Iran since the early 1950s has been shameful and has directly created nearly all of the problems currently facing Iran. The destructive policies pursued by all four of the countries (ranging from their strong support of the Shah and directly encouraging his crimes against the Iranian people, encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980, and placing crippling sanctions on Iran that prevent even he most basic of medicines from entering into the country) resulted in the deaths of at least 1-2 million innocent Iranian people.  As such US  made a terrible mistake by supporting the Shah and planning out Operation AJAX in 1953. We Americans should NEVER support a brutal monarch again. What a terrible mistake to train and supply SAVAK, which was basically an Iranian Gestapo. We should have embraced Mossadegh as a democratic ruler, and helped the Iranian people become members of a real democratic republic.
106  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Protests in Iran on: December 31, 2017, 12:44:34 pm
Whenever there is any kind of mass protest in Iran (especially the "Green" movement protests from 2009-2011), I wonder if the end is near for the current regime in power. The Iranian people never asked for a theocratic regime after the overthrow of the Shah...it just so happened that the followers of Khomenei were the most visible and organized compared to the pro-democracy advocates and communists. I am of the opinion that the people will eventually rise up and overthrow their current government, it's only a matter of time. But, it is hard to say when protests like these end up creating a domino effect that takes down the entire government (like 1979).

Hopefully sooner rather than later. If a liberal, pro-democracy regime takes over, then we can start talking about restoring good relations with Iran.

It's amazing to think that Iran and Israel had fairly good relations until 1979 considering how poor relations are right now. If I am not mistaken, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel (after Turkey). I took a Persian history class in college and I remember a discussion on how Israel and Iran were actually natural allies at one point because of their mutual distrust of Arabs...

Well, Iran was certainly not a pro-democracy regime before 1979. They had even fewer freedoms then.
I agree 100%. The Shah of Iran was one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of the 20th Century. Some of the more notable crimes committed by the Shah include his killing of 160,000 innocent Iranians between 1963 and 1978, ordering agencies such as SAVAK to bayonet any woman caught wearing the Hijab or other religious attire, suppressing freedom of speech, torturing thousands of political prisoners using the most heinous methods imaginable, and forming alliances with enemy nations such as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. As such, the Shahs overthrow was logical, justified, and came 100% from the Iranian people without any outside intervention.

There are no countries that are objectively enemies of another country. If you form an alliance with a country its no longer your enemy. It may in some cases be an untrustworthy ally, but its not an enemy.
The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK have always been against the interests of Iran and have sought to subjugate the Iranian people for decades, so I consider them to be the true enemies of Iran.
107  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Protests in Iran on: December 30, 2017, 11:29:00 pm
Whenever there is any kind of mass protest in Iran (especially the "Green" movement protests from 2009-2011), I wonder if the end is near for the current regime in power. The Iranian people never asked for a theocratic regime after the overthrow of the Shah...it just so happened that the followers of Khomenei were the most visible and organized compared to the pro-democracy advocates and communists. I am of the opinion that the people will eventually rise up and overthrow their current government, it's only a matter of time. But, it is hard to say when protests like these end up creating a domino effect that takes down the entire government (like 1979).

Hopefully sooner rather than later. If a liberal, pro-democracy regime takes over, then we can start talking about restoring good relations with Iran.

It's amazing to think that Iran and Israel had fairly good relations until 1979 considering how poor relations are right now. If I am not mistaken, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel (after Turkey). I took a Persian history class in college and I remember a discussion on how Israel and Iran were actually natural allies at one point because of their mutual distrust of Arabs...

Well, Iran was certainly not a pro-democracy regime before 1979. They had even fewer freedoms then.
I agree 100%. The Shah of Iran was one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of the 20th Century. Some of the more notable crimes committed by the Shah include his killing of 160,000 innocent Iranians between 1963 and 1978, ordering agencies such as SAVAK to bayonet any woman caught wearing the Hijab or other religious attire, suppressing freedom of speech, torturing thousands of political prisoners using the most heinous methods imaginable, and forming alliances with enemy nations such as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. As such, the Shahs overthrow was logical, justified, and came 100% from the Iranian people without any outside intervention.

Here are several links going into detail regarding the Shahs crimes:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/watching-torture-94887%3famp=1
http://www.ghandchi.com/14-Savak.htm
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/12/6/life-under-the-shah-pit-was/
108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: South in the 2020 US Presidential Election on: December 30, 2017, 02:04:13 pm
Virginia is the only southern state (I don't consider MD, DE, and DC southern) Democrats will win in 2020,
Florida has a decisive Republican lean (its filled with Old White people and Nonvoting minority's), and North Carolina is just as competitive for Democrats as New Mexico is for Republicans (they both have only voted for the party the state doesn't lean toward once in the 21st century, and they both voted about 6 points more Republican or Democratic compared to the country in 2016), while Georgia and especially Texas are Democratic pipe dreams.
Please stop it with this titanium R Florida meme. it's absurd.
I agree. President Trump is not popular at all in Florida and only win it by 1.5% in 2016. Florida is definitely competitive in 2020 and will likely be won by the Democratic nominee by around 1-2% if I had to guess. North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas are also in play as well and should be targeted heavily by the Democratic nominee.
109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: South in the 2020 US Presidential Election on: December 30, 2017, 07:39:58 am
Here’s what I think the South will look like if the Democrats nominate a very strong ticket such as Kamala Harris/John Bel Edwards and if President Trumps approval rating continues to decline to historically low levels):

Alabama: Safe Republican
Arkansas: Safe Republican        
Delaware: Safe Democrat
DC: Safe Democrat
Florida: Tossup/Lean Democrat
Georgia: Tossup    
Kentucky: Safe Republican        
Louisiana: Tossup (John Bel Edwards seems to be a very popular governor, which may lead to a coattail effect that could help the Democrats in Louisiana)
Maryland: Safe Democrat
Mississippi: Likley Republican (I expect Trump’s margin in Mississippi to fall a point or two when compared to 2016)
North Carolina: Tossup/Lean Democrat    
Oklahoma: Safe Republican
South Carolina Likley Republican    
Tennessee: Safe Republican
Texas: Tossup
Virginia: Safe Democrat
West Virginia: Safe Republican
110  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2020 Senate Elections on: December 17, 2017, 12:41:42 pm
2018: Republicans easily gain Missouri and West Virginia, but lose Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee. The Democrats may also pick up Utah if a “Never Trump” Republican such as Evan McMullin runs as a third-party candidate. As a result, the Democrats end up with around 51 or 52 seats.

2020: Democrats narrowly hold onto Alabama and pick up Montana, Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina, giving them around 58 or 59 seats.

If Dems are gaining Tennessee and Texas, they are almost certainly not "easily" losing WV and MO to Republicans.
In my opinion, Claire McCaskill faces an uphill battle for re-election in a state that President Trump is still popular in and is already between 3-16 points behind in the polls. I also think that Joe Manchin might switch over to the Republican Party, considering that he voted in favor of most of President Trump’s Congressional agenda. Joe Manchin is also a bit of an odd man out in the Democratic Party, as he is strongly pro-life and pro-gun rights, is opposed to gay marriage, and is conservative on energy policy.

McCaskill has never been more than 6 points behind a named opponent in Josh Hawley, and that was 6 months ago.
Both Josh Hawley and Blaine Luetkemeyer already hit 50% in polls against Claire McCaskill. I know it is a bit early, but Claire McCaskill is definitely the underdog in the 2018 Missouri Senate race.
111  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2020 Senate Elections on: December 17, 2017, 08:34:35 am
2018: Republicans easily gain Missouri and West Virginia, but lose Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee. The Democrats may also pick up Utah if a “Never Trump” Republican such as Evan McMullin runs as a third-party candidate. As a result, the Democrats end up with around 51 or 52 seats.

2020: Democrats narrowly hold onto Alabama and pick up Montana, Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina, giving them around 58 or 59 seats.

If Dems are gaining Tennessee and Texas, they are almost certainly not "easily" losing WV and MO to Republicans.
In my opinion, Claire McCaskill faces an uphill battle for re-election in a state that President Trump is still popular in and is already between 3-16 points behind in the polls. I also think that Joe Manchin might switch over to the Republican Party, considering that he voted in favor of most of President Trump’s Congressional agenda. Joe Manchin is also a bit of an odd man out in the Democratic Party, as he is strongly pro-life and pro-gun rights, is opposed to gay marriage, and is conservative on energy policy.
112  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Democrat wave election? on: December 16, 2017, 06:55:14 pm
I would say that the Democrats will gain anywhere between 25 and 75 House seats in the 2018 midterm elections.
113  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2020 Senate Elections on: December 16, 2017, 06:52:12 pm
2018: Republicans easily gain Missouri and West Virginia, but lose Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee. The Democrats may also pick up Utah if a “Never Trump” Republican such as Evan McMullin runs as a third-party candidate. As a result, the Democrats end up with around 51 or 52 seats.

2020: Democrats narrowly hold onto Alabama and pick up Montana, Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina, giving them around 58 or 59 seats.
114  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Ten years from today, who will be...? on: December 10, 2017, 01:38:55 pm
United States: Kamala Harris (defeats Donald Trump in 2020 and Tom Cotton in 2024 by landslide margins)
United Kingdom: Jeremy Corbyn
Canada: Justin Trudeau
Australia: Tanya Plibersek
Germany: Sigmar Gabriel
France: Édouard Philippe
India: Narendra Modi
Israel: Nir Barkat
China: Li Yuanchao
Russia: Dmitry Medvedev
Iran: Mohammed Javad Zarif
115  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1964: Nelson Rockefeller instead of Barry Goldwater on: November 25, 2017, 07:11:15 pm


President Lyndon Johnson (D-TX)/Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN): 448 EV (56%)
Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY)/Former Governor Cecil Underwood (R-WV): 73 EV (36%)
John Kasper (National States Rights-NY)/J.B. Stoner (National States Rights-GA): 17 EV (7%)
Others: 0 EV (1%)

Nelso Rockefeller does a bit better than Barry Goldwater by holding onto Vermont, Indiana, Virginia, Florida, Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Nebraska, but performs incredibly poorly in the Deep South. The presence of Cecil Underwood on the Republican ticket also makes West Virginia quite a bit closer, but President Johnson ends up carrying it by a 55-43 margin.
116  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Control of the Senate if Trump resigns on: November 16, 2017, 04:05:38 pm
It's definitely worth mentioning that in this scenario, the Speaker of the House is second-in-line. So if Democrats control the House, Pelosi or whoever is in line to take over if something happens to Pence, and the media (both mainstream and right-wing) would go crazy any time there's a minor health scare.

My question is, why would the Democrats vote for a VP nominee that would upset the partisan balance of the Senate?

I don't think Congressional Democrats would want to be blamed for denying confirmation of any VP; it could look bad for 2020. Also, red state Dems like Manchin and Donnelly would probably feel a lot of heat. On the other hand, I could see Democrats demanding another candidate if Pence nominated someone pretty far to the right.

Also, any guesses on who Pence would nominate in this situation?
Either Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney if I had to guess.
117  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Cory Booker beat Donald Trump on: October 15, 2017, 07:13:33 am


Booker: 358
Trump: 180
Seems about right, though I would switch out Iowa, Ohio, and ME-2 with Texas and Georgia and give Trump 70% of the vote in West Virginia and Oklahoma and 60% of the vote in Tennessee, Indiana, Montana, and Missouri.
118  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 2012 Election: Ron Paul (R) vs. Barack Obama (D) on: August 20, 2017, 11:28:39 am


President Barack Obama(D-IL)/Vice President Joe Biden(D-DE):  348 EVs
Representative Ron Paul(R-TX)/Fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich(R-GA):  190 EVs

Ron is too far out there for the electorate to have had a shot at all, sadly.
Seems about right, though I would probably flip New Hampshire and Maine to Ron Paul and Arizona and Georgia to Obama.
119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1972: Richard Nixon vs. Robert F. Kennedy on: August 12, 2017, 08:58:39 pm
He would have done way better than McGovern, but I doubt that anyone could have beaten Nixon in 1972 under the real life conditions. RFK might have picked Carter for VP, though that doesn't make him competative in the south. I gave him GA in the scenario, but I'm even doubtful about that.



✓ President Richard Nixon (R-CA)/Vice President Spiro Agnew (R-MD): 405 EVs.; 55.4%
Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY)/Governor Jimmy Carter (D-GA): 133 EVs.; 43.6%

Seems about right, though I would also flip Wisconsin, Oregon, and Connecticut to Kennedy.
120  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Current 2018 Senate Predictions? on: July 26, 2017, 06:31:37 am
I have the Democrats gaining Nevada, Arizona, and Texas and the Republicans winning Missouri, Indiana, and West Virginia.
121  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Describe a Muslim that voted for trump. on: July 25, 2017, 12:54:51 pm
Reza Pahlavi likely voted for Trump due to the fact that Trump is a supporter of regime change in Iran.
122  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Iran vs North Korea on: July 02, 2017, 04:43:27 pm
Maybe I was wrong in saying that North Korea had a better human rights record than Iran during the 1970s, but the Shah of Iran was still a bloodthirsty puppet dictator who slaughtered his people in high numbers, stole resources that solely belonged to the Iranian people, and only cared for himself at the expense of everyone else.
yet they still had better human rights record than today, and yet...
Quote
Say what you like about Iran under the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei, but at least today the Iranian government doesn't go on mass killings without provocation,
Right, now they only murder gays, Jews and anybody that protests....but hey, they were provoked, so it's ok.
Quote
allows for some level of political freedom, looks out for the poor and vulnerable members of society, and, most importantly, is not a puppet of nations hostile to its interests such as Israel, the US, and the U.K.
the fact that you think THAT is the most important is very telling.
Quote
The Iranian government today is also at the forefront of standing up for the rights of oppressed groups in the Middle East such as Shi'a Muslims and the Palestinian people.
awesome..and really, they are pretty typical in their horribleness in the region.  A little better than Syria or S.Arabia...a little worse than Iraq or Oman.

Don't get me wrong, the Shah sucked and we were wrong to back him...but he wasn't as bad as bearded clerics running the place since.
Nearly all of the information regarding Iran in the media is little more than propaganda that is meant to encourage the American people to support an unjust and imperialist war against Iran. The Iranian government has not killed innocent people since the late 1980s, is respectful and tolerant towards other religions, and is arguably one of the only functioning democracies in the Middle East. I am also strongly anti-Zionist, anti-Saudi, and pro-Shi'a, so I agree with nearly all of the positions that the Iranian government takes.
123  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Iran vs North Korea on: June 28, 2017, 06:37:55 am
... and how exactly was North Korea under Kim Il Sung better?
Iran ranked lower in terms of human rights and political freedom when compared to North Korea in Freedom House rankings from the 1970s. Iran at the time actually had the lowest level of freedom in the world and
That's not how I'm reading it
link to spread sheet with the deets
yr-Political Rights/Civil Liberties (lower is better)
Iran
72-5/6 (same as Spain! Yeah Franco!)
73-5/6
74-6/6
75-6/6
76-6/5
77-5/5
78-5/5

The Norks had solid 7s in that time frame.  But maybe I'm reading it wrong?  They  certainly were not the worst in the world.
Quote
the situation was so dire in the country that authoritarian countries such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea expressed concern for the human rights situation in Iran before international bodies such as the UN.
in the same way the UN claims Israel is the worst human rights abuser.  It's very common for horrible countries to point their fingers at others.  Like people who cheat always assume everybody else, especially their significant other, is too. 

FYI, Cuba was rockin' 7s, just like the Norks were, and the Soviets were almost as free as Iran with 6s.
Maybe I was wrong in saying that North Korea had a better human rights record than Iran during the 1970s, but the Shah of Iran was still a bloodthirsty puppet dictator who slaughtered his people in high numbers, stole resources that solely belonged to the Iranian people, and only cared for himself at the expense of everyone else. Say what you like about Iran under the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei, but at least today the Iranian government doesn't go on mass killings without provocation, allows for some level of political freedom, looks out for the poor and vulnerable members of society, and, most importantly, is not a puppet of nations hostile to its interests such as Israel, the US, and the U.K.  The Iranian government today is also at the forefront of standing up for the rights of oppressed groups in the Middle East such as Shi'a Muslims and the Palestinian people.
124  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Iran vs North Korea on: June 27, 2017, 08:56:05 pm
... and how exactly was North Korea under Kim Il Sung better?
Iran ranked lower in terms of human rights and political freedom when compared to North Korea in Freedom House rankings from the 1970s. Iran at the time actually had the lowest level of freedom in the world and the situation was so dire in the country that authoritarian countries such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea expressed concern for the human rights situation in Iran before international bodies such as the UN.
125  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Iran vs North Korea on: June 27, 2017, 08:38:03 pm
Easily Iran. Had I been alive between 1953 and 1978 however, I would have picked North Korea, as living in Iran under the Shah was akin to hell on Earth.
google "Iran in the 70s" and please come back with your thoughts

(I'm not arguing it was heaven on Earth either, just so we're clear)
I am close friends with a 25 year old Iranian American woman (hopefilully more than friends in the near future if I play my cards right) whose parents lived in Iran until the early 1980s. My friends mother was active in the anti-Shah student movement at Tehran University (though she is not that religious at all) and described to me the crimes that the Shah committed against the Iranian people from the early 1950s until the late 1970s. Organizations such as SAVAK controlled nearly every aspect of Iranian society and ruthlessly dealt with any dissent. Freedom of speech, press freedom, and political freedom were non-existent and Iran had around 100,000 political prisoners by 1976. Additionally, security forces loyal to the Shah routinely fired upon innocent civilians who were unconnected to political activities. I am not saying that Iran is a perfect place today, but it is apparent that the political situation in Iran has improved overall since the 1978-79 Revolution.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 102


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines