Iran and Bubba's Political Beer Analogy

[The Bare Knuckled Pundit]

While Americans have eagerly embraced the image of Mousavi the Reformer and the idea of a second Iranian revolution, they would be well advised to take a closer look beyond the headlines and eye-catching imagery.

While Mousavi parts ways with Ahmadinejad on strict enforcement of the state's Islamic-based moral codes, he shares the incumbent's views on Iran's unrestricted right to pursue nuclear power. Though he believes Ahmadinejad's belligerence and denial of the Holocaust have given the nation a negative image globally, he believes only that the tenor of the regime should be changed and not it's fundamental structure.

Are Iranians marching in tens of thousands against perceived electoral fraud and governmental corruption, yes. However, they're not fighting in the streets with their children at their feet. Let's be starkly clear. There's no popular groundswell calling for the overthrow of the current political structure, no talk of a new constitution for one to tip their hat to.

Allow me to open up the Big Book of Bare Knuckled Bubba Political Analogies, if you will. In essence, the crux of the controversy is akin to choosing between Bud and Bud Light. You're merely deciding which flavor you want; in the end you're still drinking beer. If you opted for vodka, whiskey or my personal favorite, Jagermeister, then you'd be talking about a substantive change. Granted, you'd still be drinking alcohol, but it would be a completely different form of alcohol from that of beer.

Applying Bubba's beer analogy to the current situation in Iran, the Iranian people are arguing over the choice between Regime or Regime Light - one is the tried and true, status quo King of Repression while the other is less filling and has a lighter moral code that tastes great. Both are nothing more than brands distributed by the same brewery. Furthermore, the brewery enjoys an iron-clad monopoly on it's market. One that it has no intention whatsoever of relinquishing, mind you.

In the end, the choice is between whether the iron gauntlet of the regime and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be sheathed in the Member's Only jacket of Mr. Ahmadinejad or the velvet glove of Mr. Mousavi. Regardless of who ultimately wears it, the iron gauntlet remains. Americans should remain ever mindful of that, lest their emotions get the better of them and they once again find themselves bitterly disappointed that what appeared to be promising blips of change on Iran's political radar were nothing more than false echoes.

In the meantime, this Bud's for you.

 

[Damocles]

Do you have evidence that he supports the Nuclear Arms position? As far as I understood it he ran on a platform of international supervision of a nuclear power program.

 

[Bonestorm]

Do you have evidence that he supports the Nuclear Arms position? As far as I understood it he ran on a platform of international supervision of a nuclear power program.

Mooseknuckle referred to nuclear power, not nuclear arms.

My extremely limited understanding of Mousavi's position is that, like pretty much all other Iranians, he believes that Iran has the unqualified right to pursue an nuclear energy program but that the nuclear arms issue is "negotiable."

 

[The Bare Knuckled Pundit]

Dam,

For once, Dungheap was spot on. I was referring to Mousavi's position on nuclear power, not weapons. Nonetheless, for your edification, please refer to this.

 

[Damocles]

Mooseknuckle referred to nuclear power, not nuclear arms.

My extremely limited understanding of Mousavi's position is that, like pretty much all other Iranians, he believes that Iran has the unqualified right to pursue an nuclear energy program but that the nuclear arms issue is "negotiable."

However, international supervision of the power program is to watch for any aim towards weapons. Agreeing to one seems to mean an expansion on the "negotiable" portion of the arms position.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

While Americans have eagerly embraced the image of Mousavi the Reformer and the idea of a second Iranian revolution, they would be well advised to take a closer look beyond the headlines and eye-catching imagery.

While Mousavi parts ways with Ahmadinejad on strict enforcement of the state's Islamic-based moral codes, he shares the incumbent's views on Iran's unrestricted right to pursue nuclear power. Though he believes Ahmadinejad's belligerence and denial of the Holocaust have given the nation a negative image globally, he believes only that the tenor of the regime should be changed and not it's fundamental structure.

Are Iranians marching in tens of thousands against perceived electoral fraud and governmental corruption, yes. However, they're not fighting in the streets with their children at their feet. Let's be starkly clear. There's no popular groundswell calling for the overthrow of the current political structure, no talk of a new constitution for one to tip their hat to.

Allow me to open up the Big Book of Bare Knuckled Bubba Political Analogies, if you will. In essence, the crux of the controversy is akin to choosing between Bud and Bud Light. You're merely deciding which flavor you want; in the end you're still drinking beer. If you opted for vodka, whiskey or my personal favorite, Jagermeister, then you'd be talking about a substantive change. Granted, you'd still be drinking alcohol, but it would be a completely different form of alcohol from that of beer.

Applying Bubba's beer analogy to the current situation in Iran, the Iranian people are arguing over the choice between Regime or Regime Light - one is the tried and true, status quo King of Repression while the other is less filling and has a lighter moral code that tastes great. Both are nothing more than brands distributed by the same brewery. Furthermore, the brewery enjoys an iron-clad monopoly on it's market. One that it has no intention whatsoever of relinquishing, mind you.

In the end, the choice is between whether the iron gauntlet of the regime and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be sheathed in the Member's Only jacket of Mr. Ahmadinejad or the velvet glove of Mr. Mousavi. Regardless of who ultimately wears it, the iron gauntlet remains. Americans should remain ever mindful of that, lest their emotions get the better of them and they once again find themselves bitterly disappointed that what appeared to be promising blips of change on Iran's political radar were nothing more than false echoes.

In the meantime, this Bud's for you.

I have another beer analogy. Piss on them!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

BKP's point isn't about Iran's nuclear program. It's about where ultimate political power lies in Iran. Ultimate power in Iran resides with Khomeni and the Islamic council. BKP's assertion that there isn't really a political movement in Iran for a change of the political structure so much as for reform for either Islamic fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism light. The real political paradigm in Iran is an age old one of the need for the urban population to modernize and to compete and develop economically vs the innate conservatism of rural people and their traditional life styles.

Right now political power belongs to the rural Iranian population which is intenesly conservative and traditional and who will passionately throw it's support behind the exisiting ruling oligarchy even though it's robbing the country blind.

Ultimately it will be economic forces that will force Iran to reform or modernize it's government but for right now the rural political paradigm has the gold, guns and numbers so change isn't going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

However, international supervision of the power program is to watch for any aim towards weapons. Agreeing to one seems to mean an expansion on the "negotiable" portion of the arms position.

Would you agree to those conditions in the USA to allow us to expand our nuclear energy program?

 

[Damocles]

Would you agree to those conditions in the USA to allow us to expand our nuclear energy program?

Unrealistic and silly. Would you step into current reality and current treaties or keep pretending hypothetical inanity makes a difference?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

BKP's point isn't about Iran's nuclear program. It's about where ultimate political power lies in Iran. Ultimate power in Iran resides with Khomeni and the Islamic council. BKP's assertion that there isn't really a political movement in Iran for a change of the political structure so much as for reform for either Islamic fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism light. The real political paradigm in Iran is an age old one of the need for the urban population to modernize and to compete and develop economically vs the innate conservatism of rural people and their traditional life styles.

Right now political power belongs to the rural Iranian population which is intenesly conservative and traditional and who will passionately throw it's support behind the exisiting ruling oligarchy even though it's robbing the country blind.

Ultimately it will be economic forces that will force Iran to reform or modernize it's government but for right now the rural political paradigm has the gold, guns and numbers so change isn't going to happen anytime soon.

thats possible, however, i am loathe to underestimate religious fanaticism or belief. islam has more control over its adherants than probably any other religion. for starters, the prayer 5 times a day....i don't think an economic revolution will change much. look at dubai, it is an economic powerhouse right now and there is little islamic change from prior to the economic boom...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Do you have evidence that he supports the Nuclear Arms position? As far as I understood it he ran on a platform of international supervision of a nuclear power program.

He believes Iran has the right to develop nuclear power, but he doesn't make it such a huge priority like Ahmajinadad is doing, pouring ridiculous amounts of money into the program.

He also wants to listen the restrictions on women and disband the moral police. I think those are pretty significant changes, as good as we could hope for from an Islamic state.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Unrealistic and silly. Would you step into current reality and current treaties or keep pretending hypothetical inanity makes a difference?

You're evading the question. Obviously I"m pointing out that what you're proposing is a double standard and that's why the US lacks credibility in this discussion. That's the reality. Considering our past history of intervention in Iran I seriously doubt the US suggesting a double standard for developing their nuclear program would be well recieved.

You may think I'm being unrealistic but you're being niave.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

thats possible, however, i am loathe to underestimate religious fanaticism or belief. islam has more control over its adherants than probably any other religion. for starters, the prayer 5 times a day....i don't think an economic revolution will change much. look at dubai, it is an economic powerhouse right now and there is little islamic change from prior to the economic boom...

You haven't been to many fundamentalist Christian churches have you?

Has there been much change in the USA in Catholicism since our revolution?

Islam is almost a side issue here. In Iran, it's a given. This protest isn't about the status of the Islamic Republic in Iran and Iranian's could give a shit less about what the US thinks or feels about how it governs its own affairs. Which is certainly understandable.

Your comments of Islam are either bigoted or uninformed. Praying 5 times a day isn't necessarily "control". It could be said that it's a measure of devotion and spirituality.

This protest is about representation within their Republic. Not only is the Grand Ayattolah ignoring this, he's resorted to violence to stop the protest. This won't be like Poland or the Czhek Republic or the Philippines when Marcos fell. These guys are gonna crack heads, ignore the tenets of their own Islamic revolution and Islamic Fundamentalism light is going to go right out the window.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Let's go one step further: What's happening in Iran is that you have people standing up to the mullah backed candidate......indirectly challenging the theocratic rule. How long and far this will go has yet to be seen.

Folks need to remember that prior to the Shrub's election, you actually had a democracy reform movement that was led by the nephew of the late Ayatollah Kohmeini. What became of that I don't know....but the Iranian people weren't too pleased with Amadinajhad (spl) performance in the first place. But if anything should come of this, one must remember that given the US history of involvment in Iran, it's citizenry may not be too eager for any "help" from us.

 

[Damocles]

You're evading the question. Obviously I"m pointing out that what you're proposing is a double standard and that's why the US lacks credibility in this discussion. That's the reality. Considering our past history of intervention in Iran I seriously doubt the US suggesting a double standard for developing their nuclear program would be well recieved.

You may think I'm being unrealistic but you're being niave.

No, I'm not. I've answered the question long before, but it has little merit here where we are talking about one specific candidate and what allowing international supervision of their nuclear programs would mean.

Really, this isn't the conversation for that. That one would be when we are talking about whether I think Iran should be allowed to go after nuclear weapons, not in one where we are talking about the implications and effect of the campaign promise of somebody who has not gained the office to allow that supervision.

For the record, and since it is unlikely for anybody to remember, I have said in the past, "If I was the leadership in Iran I certainly would work to get nuclear weapons as it appears to be the only way to get the US to leave you alone."

But again, it really has no salience in this particular discussion at this time.

As I said when I asked my question. The reason for international supervision of the nuclear program is to ensure that it is not used to gain weapons. Does his position, that of being pro-supervision, indicate that he has a far larger urge to "negotiate" on the weapons than the original post indicates?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Let's go one step further: What's happening in Iran is that you have people standing up to the mullah backed candidate......indirectly challenging the theocratic rule. How long and far this will go has yet to be seen.

Folks need to remember that prior to the Shrub's election, you actually had a democracy reform movement that was led by the nephew of the late Ayatollah Kohmeini. What became of that I don't know....but the Iranian people weren't too pleased with Amadinajhad (spl) performance in the first place. But if anything should come of this, one must remember that given the US history of involvment in Iran, it's citizenry may not be too eager for any "help" from us.

It won't go much farther, at least not yet. If Khomeni has to commit a blood bath he will do so, and pretty much get away with it but it will get people off the streets.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, I'm not. I've answered the question long before, but it has little merit here where we are talking about one specific candidate and what allowing international supervision of their nuclear programs would mean.

Really, this isn't the conversation for that. That one would be when we are talking about whether I think Iran should be allowed to go after nuclear weapons, not in one where we are talking about the implications and effect of the campaign promise of somebody who has not gained the office to allow that supervision.

For the record, and since it is unlikely for anybody to remember, I have said in the past, "If I was the leadership in Iran I certainly would work to get nuclear weapons as it appears to be the only way to get the US to leave you alone."

But again, it really has no salience in this particular discussion at this time.

As I said when I asked my question. The reason for international supervision of the nuclear program is to ensure that it is not used to gain weapons. Does his position, that of being pro-supervision, indicate that he has a far larger urge to "negotiate" on the weapons than the original post indicates?

Actually just the threat of having nuclear weapons is enough to give the US pause to think of the larger implications. Hell, they even made Bush stop and think and God knows that didn't happen often.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Actually just the threat of having nuclear weapons is enough to give the US pause to think of the larger implications. Hell, they even made Bush stop and think and God knows that didn't happen often.

But what the media pundits and international commentators rarely comment on is that Israel has had tactical nuke arsenal for some time now. It's in violation of all the rules, but the USA and the EU are prone to look the other way. So when Iran and Iraq and other ME nations vie for nukes, I'm not surprised. The REAL question is whether Israel will go ahead and air strike Iran's nuke facilities...and whether that will start the ball rolling for some type of "world" war.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Do I think Mousavi farts roses? No.

Do I think he's a massive fucking improvement over the current situation? Yes.

You shouldn't pretend as if there is no difference.