Should I stay in America if it has become too corrupt and too undemocratic?

[Bobby_2021]

I cannot help it. Leo is fundamentally biased with western dogma even though he himself is Ukrainian. I don't know how it this even possible. How can you sit and watch you own people getting subjugated by western capitalist interests while you blame them for their "lack of development".

In an older thread, Leo explained how the liberal outlook of California is what attracted billions wealth, eventually leading California being richer than many countries. This is in part to being California's geography and it being the last to be colonized.

But when I pointed out that Indian subcontinent was the wealthiest part of the world before British colonisation, suddenly he pointed out that wealth doesn't equal development. 

California being the last to get colonized makes it liberal and highly developed and wealthy, according to his own words.

But India being colonized and looted for 200 years is itself responsible for the lack of development, and has nothing to do with colonization.

Lmao I can't.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

California being the last to get colonized makes it liberal and highly developed and wealthy, according to his own words.

But India being colonized and looted for 200 years is itself responsible for the lack of development, and has nothing to do with colonization.

Lmao I can't.

You are using two different meanings of the word "colonized".

Edited July 22 by Leo Gura

[Staples]

@Bobby_2021 Leo is pointing to developmental issues that began before the US was even founded.

See how exploitation is still just as awful as you are describing, and yet there are still dozens of more factors that are contributing to underdevelopment?

This is not to say the US is developed, they're just very slightly ahead. Development potential is a very long scale.

The issues at hand are infinitely complex, you could work on this problem your whole life and not even come close to a full picture understanding.

[Bobby_2021]

22 minutes ago, Raze said:

Islamic fundamentalism regained popularity in large part because of western interventionism

 

The whole problem is the genocidal state of Is***l's lobby has the US congress by the balls. 

And the genocidal state wants nothing but total domination. 

So they drag US to random wars and destabilize the living shit out of middle east.

Then blame islamic fundamentalism. 

All of it will come back to bite it's own ass.

[Nivsch]

10 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The whole problem is the genocidal state of Is***l's lobby has the US congress by the balls. 

And the genocidal state wants nothing but total domination. 

So they drag US to random wars and destabilize the living shit out of middle east.

Then blame islamic fundamentalism. 

All of it will come back to bite it's own ass.

No. The whole problem is the shameless generalization you do now on a country you don't really know.

[Bobby_2021]

"

Quote

Question: 

What were the major developments in the women's rights in Iran prior to 1950?

Answer:

To discuss the major developments in women's rights in Iran prior to 1950, it's important to consider the historical context and the gradual changes that occurred during this period. Here's an overview of some key developments:

1. Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911):
Although not specifically focused on women's rights, this period marked the beginning of modernization efforts in Iran. Some women participated in protests and political discussions, which was unprecedented at the time.

2. Establishment of girls' schools:
In the early 20th century, there was a push for female education. The first modern girls' school in Iran, Doushizgan ("School for Girls"), was founded in 1907 by American missionaries. This was followed by other schools, both religious and secular, opening for girls.

3. Women's press:
The first women's journal, "Danesh" (Knowledge), was published in 1910, followed by others like "Shokufeh" (Blossom) in 1913. These publications discussed women's issues and rights.

4. Unveiling movement:
In the 1920s and 1930s, there was a growing movement against the mandatory veiling of women. This culminated in Reza Shah Pahlavi's 1936 decree banning the veil, which was controversial and met with resistance in more conservative sectors of society.

5. Women's organizations:
Various women's organizations were formed in the early 20th century, such as "Jamiat-e Nesvan-e Vatankhah" (Patriotic Women's League) in 1922, which advocated for women's rights and education.

6. Higher education:
Tehran University began admitting female students in 1935, marking a significant step in women's access to higher education.

7. Family law reforms:
In 1931, the Marriage Law was passed, setting a minimum age for marriage and requiring marriages to be registered. In 1935, the Civil Code granted women the right to ask for divorce under certain conditions.

8. Women's suffrage movement:
Although women's suffrage wasn't achieved until 1963, the movement for women's voting rights gained momentum in the 1940s.

It's worth noting that many of these developments were part of broader modernization efforts and often faced resistance from more conservative elements in Iranian society. The impact and implementation of these changes varied across different social classes and regions of Iran.

Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of women's rights developments in Iran during this period?

No Leo, women wearing bikinis in Iran was made possible only due to the hard work of many people including many American missionaries. It does point to systematic painstaking developmental efforts over a long period of time that was making astounding progress till 1979.

At times it was met with resistance from rural parts of the country. They pushed it slowly and steadily regardless. 

Imagine if they also had the wealth of their own oil fields, coupled with a progressive establishment instead of losing it to British and the Americans.

As if overthrowing their democracy isn't enough, they even imposed sanctions on the Iranian people to further subjugate them even today. 

All of it is supposed to have no effects on their development. Nice joke. 

This is criminal domination 101 with all means possible combined with victim blaming. 

Quote

Question: Would you explain how the overthrow of the democratically leader of Iran in 1953 by the CIA led to the 1979 Islamic revolution?

Answer:

The overthrow of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, known as Operation Ajax, and its connection to the 1979 Islamic Revolution is a complex and contentious topic in Iranian history. Here's an overview of how these events are often linked:

1. The 1953 Coup:
- Mosaddegh had nationalized Iran's oil industry, which was previously controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP).
- This action angered Western powers, particularly the UK and the US.
- The CIA, working with British intelligence, orchestrated a coup that overthrew Mosaddegh and reinstalled Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the Shah of Iran.

2. Aftermath of the Coup:
- The Shah's power was significantly increased, and he became increasingly autocratic.
- The coup led to widespread resentment among Iranians towards Western interference in their country's affairs.
- It undermined the legitimacy of the monarchy in the eyes of many Iranians.

3. The Shah's Rule (1953-1979):
- The Shah pursued rapid modernization and Westernization, known as the "White Revolution."
- While there was economic growth, income inequality widened.
- Political repression increased, with the SAVAK (secret police) suppressing dissent.
- Many Iranians felt that their cultural and religious values were being eroded.

4. Growing Opposition:
- Various groups, including leftists, nationalists, and religious conservatives, opposed the Shah's rule.
- Ayatollah Khomeini emerged as a leading critic of the Shah and was exiled in 1964.
- The opposition often invoked the 1953 coup as an example of the Shah's illegitimacy and Western imperialism.

5. The 1979 Revolution:
- Mass protests against the Shah began in 1978 and intensified into 1979.
- The revolution united diverse groups against the Shah, with Khomeini emerging as a unifying figure.
- The Shah was forced to leave Iran in January 1979, and Khomeini returned from exile.
- The revolution culminated in the establishment of the Islamic Republic.

6. Legacy of 1953 in the Revolution:
- The memory of the 1953 coup fueled anti-Western sentiment, particularly against the US.
- It contributed to the revolutionary narrative of throwing off Western influence and restoring Iranian sovereignty.
- The fear of another Western-backed coup influenced the hostage crisis at the US Embassy in Tehran.

In essence, the 1953 coup is often seen as a pivotal moment that undermined Iran's democratic development, fostered anti-Western sentiment, and contributed to the conditions that led to the 1979 revolution. However, it's important to note that this is a simplified explanation of a complex historical process involving many factors beyond just the 1953 coup.

In short, western intervention is to blame and nothing else. There are no "other factors" bullshit.

[Bobby_2021]

54 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Crazy how studying this conversation here reflects my relationship issues I’m facing right now…

You better not infringe on your partners sovereignty like United States infringes on the sovereignty of liberal leftist democratic states. 

Edited July 22 by Bobby_2021

[Yimpa]

@Bobby_2021 mistakes are certainly being made, but I am open to course correction. Thank you!

[Merkabah Star]

1 hour ago, Yimpa said:

@Bobby_2021 mistakes are certainly being made, but I am open to course correction. Thank you!

Maybe you can both go on a vipassana retreat? 🙏

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Raze said:

Islamic fundamentalism regained popularity in large part because of western interventionism

Whats the evidence for this?

[Leo Gura]

Fundamentalism is a reaction to secularism and progressivism.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Fundamentalism is a reaction to secularism and progressivism.

Sounds really reductive.

Can you ground that statement in any emprical data, that actually shows a causal relationship or are we just going by our biases and assumptions?

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Fundamentalism is a reaction to secularism and progressivism.

Overthrowing a democratically leader, stealing their oil and siphoning their natural wealth to mega corporations in the west, and as if all of that is not enough, sanctioning them and anyone who does business with them is the epitome of secularism and progressivism. 

I wonder why you didn't mention freedom and democracy as well with secularism and progressivism. That's a match made in hell.

Thanks to the CIA women have to wear Burqas instead of Bikinis now.

😂

Edited July 22 by Bobby_2021

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I cannot help it. Leo is fundamentally biased with western dogma even though he himself is Ukrainian. I don't know how it this even possible. How can you sit and watch you own people getting subjugated by western capitalist interests while you blame them for their "lack of development".

If he was biased with Ukranian dogma, the response would be 50 times stronger against your points.

Russia has bombed, blackmailed, tortured, and killed the civilian population of Ukraine for over two years. BRICS are their allies. Again I have to tell a pro Russia, pro BRICS spearker that fear and violence push people away from you. Rather than listen to them scratching their heads as to why NATO and western values are preferred. How can it be possible that people prefer money to fear ????? At its core, that's what you are asking. There is no need to reply to tell me of all people that America has created plenty of fear throughout the Middle East for example, yes is the answer.

A Ukrainian bias who had lost family, and friends, and seen his towns wrecked repeatedly by missiles, would have hatred in his words towards your point of view. Something you can't see or don't want to understand in all our discussions, because it means acknowledging Ukraine instead of 'the west', and the realities on the ground. You have to actually focus on the region, which was almost impossible in every post I made to you (and there were dozens) because of your anti-American bias.

We had a lot of discussions I enjoyed, and you brought a lot of points I had to consider, but this was a fundamental point I kept bringing back.

The problem becomes you then have to frame everything from an anti-American standpoint, and anything that doesn't fit into it you can't answer or discuss. Its pretty much the same with everyone who is pro-Russian, I have met maybe 5 people in all these years with a BRICS bias who can focus on the region itself.  There was a great speaker, which 'the west' and Russia both silenced who said many Russians saw this as a civil war for example, and nobody can even consider that salient point because they are too busy talking about America.

Anyway, that's just one flaw of many in not being able to focus on the region, the main one is we never get peace because we are never dealing with the people involved. 

Edited July 22 by BlueOak

[Raze]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

Whats the evidence for this?

The US supported Saudi Arabia spreading Wahhabism, funding Islamists in Afghanistan and Syria, and extremism increased in rebellion to Israel winning the six day war and occupying Palestine with US support 

Edited July 22 by Raze

[nerdspeak]

It depends on what your values are. If you value economic freedom above all else then the US is still one of the best places in the world. In Western Europe you go through the equivalent of an audit every time you file taxes.

If you value un-corrupt elections, public goods like education and clean energy, and free high-quality education, then places like the Netherlands or Belgium are much better. 

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

The US supported Saudi Arabia spreading Wahhabism, funding Islamists in Afghanistan and Syria, and extremism increased in rebellion to Israel winning the six day war and occupying Palestine with US support

I see, thanks for the example. Is the argument that if there wouldn't have been any funding the extremisim wouldn't have increased at all, or the argument is that it wouldn't have increased this much?

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, zurew said:

Sounds really reductive.

Can you ground that statement in any emprical data, that actually shows a causal relationship or are we just going by our biases and assumptions?

There is serious academic literature that studies and explains the nature of fundamentalism. It's called The Fundamentalism Project and they have a series of 6 academic level books:

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/series/FP.html

Maybe you should read them before mouthing off at me.

Edited July 22 by Leo Gura

[questionreality]

7 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Overthrowing a democratically leader, stealing their oil and siphoning their natural wealth to mega corporations in the west, and as if all of that is not enough, sanctioning them and anyone who does business with them is the epitome of secularism and progressivism. 

I wonder why you didn't mention freedom and democracy as well with secularism and progressivism. That's a match made in hell.

Thanks to the CIA women have to wear Burqas instead of Bikinis now.

😂

I cannot believe that LEO is actually denying these obvious things, that are right on the surface. My guess is people don't want to admit these things to themselves, as deep down it would show the damage that was done in the name of secularism, progressivism, freedom, democracy. 

[Rafael Thundercat]

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

I cannot believe that LEO is actually denying these obvious things, that are right on the surface. My guess is people don't want to admit these things to themselves, as deep down it would show the damage that was done in the name of secularism, progressivism, freedom, democracy. 

There is a lot people keep in denial, simply because it will go agaist their need to keep the so dear conforts of modern life. Humans will prefer destruction instead of living in sync with Nature. 

The solution are old. But man dont want tp listen.