FG

apologist = mainstream

Yes, the mainstream in Iran support the supreme Islamic Fuehrer. That is why in preparation for the upcoming anniversary of 22 Bahman, the speeches of Khomeini himself are banned from being played, because the IRR fears it might provoke an uprising.

I guess all governments who have nothing to be worried about when it comes to their "mainstream" public opinion behave this way.

So if the mainstream is so securely in favor of your "legitimate" president, why are not peaceful demonstrations allowed, so that the whole world can see how few they are? What are you afraid of big boys?

Today you are afraid of your own shadows even, as you should be.

-Fair

Excellent post FG, and response Jamshid

Waffen SS Major and other regime lackeys can stick their heads in dark places as much as they want. Just a few days ago Iran's central bank said that foreign investment in Iran has fallen by over 90% to some pathetically low level. Just today the coup parliament speaker has expressed grave concern at the the political crisis and paralysis that has taken the country. But meanwhile Qom's Baghdad Bob here keeps insisting that IRI is here to stay and his logic is that it has survived so far so it will just keep surviving. And in the process he calls all the peaceful protestors in Iran and the innocent girls that got raped in prison subversives, and the hezbollahi plainclothes thugs and other rapist murderers "law enforcement" He has betrayed his own people and his own father in favor of the Islamic Fuehrer.

Fact: All totalitarian dictatorships like the USSR face the same fate, but in different forms. If the USSR could have continued, it would have. They would not have "surrendered" to the west had they not been completely bankrupt and defunct. Just like the Islamic Fuehrer's junta, which is by now hanging on by sheer force. If you truly care about Iranian people not suffering the way the Russian people did, you will learn from the Soviet mistakes and not keep insisting on a bankrupt ideology.

But you won't do that, because everybody must die so that you and your fascist gang can continue to rape Iranians. You have chosen to stand against the people of Iran, and you have betrayed your country shamelessly.

-Fair

sargord

"Your term "apologist" actually equals "mainstream" inside Iran."

You are both correct and wrong with your above statement. You are correct because among the bacheh akhoond, aghaa zadeh and basiji thugs in Iran, "apologist" does actually equal to "mainstream".

And you are wrong because these bunches are a small minority in Iran, and among the rest of the people, "apologist" equals "accomplice" and "traitor".

You have certainly chosen your side. It is the side of a bankrupt ideology and it is a side of an oppressing and corrupt minority that is loosing its grounds fast.

Since you are/were in the military, for your own sake, learn from 1979 and make sure your union with these corrupt and murderous thugs is not documented anywhere. Because if it is, you won't be thinking about returning to Iran anytime soon.

apologist = mainstream

That's right- you read right. Your term "apologist" actually equals "mainstream" inside Iran.

But hey, go right ahead and jump up and down in your false sense of triumphalism. Ignorance is bliss- right?

FG, as always an excellent

FG, as always an excellent analysis.

Russia always on my mind!

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sRJ-eOHnc

Funny, our communist activists after the 79 revolution never took the refuge in Eastern block.

Oh let me go see what the heck is going on there. It's all good but do I want to live there? Hell no!

Funny how the apologists

claim that if you wish ill upon the mullahdom, you have big bad intentions for iran and do not care about her welfare..

NEWS FLASH:

1. It is good for Iran to rid herself of the cancer of clergy.

2. The "silent majority" is dead scared of the brutal regime. That's why they're silent. The paid "supporters" bussed in and given the day off with all kinds of perks are the M I NO R I T Y.

Great blog, FG.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Funny :)

So FG, you write a blog post, then enter the first comment yourself, directed at someone who has not even commented on your blog post? What's up with that?

For your info, FG, I actually travelled by car through a number of Soviet republics in the 1970's. So I saw first hand what they were like. Know what? They weren't all that bad. They were the cleanest and most well organized societies I've ever seen. Unfortunately for them, things got bad in the 1980's. And their leadership pretty much surrendered to the West.

After the Berlin Wall fell, a trio of East German girls came to live in my city and we all became close friends. I was quite fond of them. One was a gorgeous fashion model. Another was an impressive intellectual. She actually missed her socialist society, and was still a believer.

Anyway, your comparison of the USSR to the IRI is provided solely as a means of gratifying your personal fantasy for a similar- but unlikely- result to take place in Iran.

The Russian people suffered a great deal after the demise of the USSR. For you to wish the same upon Iran really shows how little you care for the welfare of the people of Iran, as well as your disregard for the silent majority of Iranians living inside Iran who love their country and are in no way subversive.

repentance

Mr.pirouz  IR is headding to the drain and to save Islam for some true believers  please COME OUT and say YOU ARE sorry for constantly backing that diabolic regime.  NO HARM; guarantee.       Maziar

Sargord Perouz: Whistling past a graveyard?

Perouz, a constant regime apologist, repeats the error too many red-faced Sovietologists did in the eighties when confronted with the conclusions of Marshall Goldman, the “bad boy” of Soviet economics, whose 1981 book “The Coming Demise of the Soviet Union,” proved dead right.

What Marshall did was to analyze where earlier predictions went wrong and show what had changed.  Any open-minded observer can see that the emotional depth of dissent in Iran today is far deeper and wider than Soviet dissent at the time of the USSR's collapse. 

Earlier critics were dead right in everything they said about incompetence, waste, clumbsiness and corruption in the Soviet Union.  Their mistake was to assume such things  mattered in an isolated, non-democratic state knee deep in cheap resources.  They  also failed to consider several advantagers the regime had earlier but had lost or was beginning to lose when the end came, as Marshall noted.

In IRAN’s case, it never enjoyed most of these advantages in the first place since by 1979 too much had changed. Let’s look at three advantages the Soviet Union enjoyed prior to its last three decades:

1. UNLIKE IRAN the Soviets had manpower and cheap natural resources to waste in the early years. Hence they easily solved many problems simply by throwing resources at them.  That was no longer true by the eighties. For example, Agriculture was a special disaster. Despite endless tractor production, it took 20 Soviet farmers to produce what one American farmer produced.  These were resouces that might have been useful elsewhere, producing something badly needed.

If the resource-poor Japanese had switched to communism after WWII, they’d have starved long ago. Also, note how Iran too has squandered the one natural source of wealth possesses in abundance.

Unlike China, Korea and Taiwan, the mullahs have done nothing to produce a diversified economy. Iranians can survive by reading or eating the Koran.

2. UNLIKE IRAN the Soviets had much greater ability to control information, contacts and news of the outside world.  Technique of controlling information (sealed borders, travel restricions, bans of private phones, maps, copiers, and licensing of typewriters) went much farther than Iran could manage.  One reason for Glasnost (openness) was that Gorbachev recognized that by the 1980s  a modern economy could no longer function with such restrictions.  Change wasn't a matter of choice but of necessity.

By the time of the Iranian Revolution (1979)  new technical changes were so great and so vital to maintaining pace, any country that tried to avoid them would pay a high price.  You can’t afford ban computers, cellphones, the internet, satellites and modern education (requires learning to think for ones) and espect to create a model anyone would emulate.  On the other hand, you can't allow them and retain control over what the public can know. 

The USSR made one choice and paid for it.  Iran made a different choice and paid for it. Unlike most Soviet subjects, Iranians live incongrously in a dictatorship but can read news from sources outside the regime, and pass it along tro others within the country.

3. UNLIKE IRAN much of the USSR's existence coincided with an industrial age about to disappear in the last third of the 20th century.  The standard yardsticks by which the Soviets measured progress and by which they had once impressed themselves and others were based on that age.  Such achievements would be far less impressive in a post-industrial age.  

A command economy is fine for heavy industry (concrete plants, roads, bridges, dams, tractor, mass productionh of war goods such as tanks) but awful at producing consumer goods (light industry).  It might do for the forties and fifties providing your populace didn't want much otherwise. 

That won't do at all in an age when entertainment, communications and education have all been influenced by revolutionary changes. Creativity and inventness here requires the sort of intellectual freedom incompatible with ideology based regimes. 

The Iranian regime can't live in the 1940s and fifties.  Besides, most Iranians won't never go along with it.