My understanding is that Mousavi represents a more educated, reformist middle-class electorate, which feels under Ahmadinejad a bit similar to how Nader's supporters and leftist democrats felt under Bush. It could be mostly psychological rather than real differences between the two (similar to Bush - Obama)... but it's amplified by the polarization from the repressive tactics of the state and the general economic malaise.
Ahmadinejad was popular b/c he has humble origins (isn't part of Iran's corrupt wealthy elite) and he give lots of handouts. That's right up to 2009's elections. Moussavi etc. challenged the election results (unlike Gore, Kerry etc.) and this lead to the state assuming a much harder line against dissent. There seems to have been electoral fraud, maybe masterminded by the ayatollahs who didn't trust the progressives and their connections (if any) with the West. At present, the situation is asphyxiating, and the big majority ain't happy with it.
A more appropriate example would be Suharto in Indonesia.
By the 1990s, corruption and the authoritarianism of his New Order led to discontent among Indonesians. By the 1990s, Suharto's children was allowed to set-up businesses that monopolised key sectors of economy, ventures which mostly relied on Suharto's political influence. Such nepotistic policies greatly damaged support for Suharto's rule amongst the new upper and middle class created by New Order's decades of high growth. Suharto denied many political and democratic freedoms and rights to the Indonesian people, in the name of securing stability required for economic development of the country. Additionally, Suharto was accused of employing brutality against his political opponents, most notably the anti-communist massacres at the beginning of his rule.
His resignation:
The Asian Financial Crisis had dire consequences for the Indonesian economy and society, and Suharto's regime. The Indonesian currency collapsed in value, foreign investment dried up, and mass layoffs of urban workers and price rises created tension across the country. Suharto was re-elected for another five-year term in March 1998, stacking parliament and cabinet with his own family and business associates in the process. Increasingly, prominent political figures spoke out against Suharto's presidency, and university students organised nation-wide demonstrations. The shooting of four student demonstrators in Jakarta in May 1998 triggered rioting across the city that destroyed thousands of buildings and killed over 1,000 people. Following public outrage at the events, a student occupation of the parliament building, streets protest across the country, and the desertion of key political allies, on 21 May 1998 Suharto announced his resignation from the presidency. His recently appointed Vice President Habibie assumed the presidency in accordance with the constitution.
Iran's theocratic democracy would be much more functioning and aligned with their people's wishes, had it not been for the constant threat of war and militarization of their society. Today's iranians are young and progressive, and will find ways to change the situation for the better if the outside front calms for a few years. JMO.
Hypothetical question so no one can be certain. It's likely that Iraqis would protest their hardest against Saddam, given that their country would have deteriorated big time during his rein and most of them would be very poor/unemployed, i.e. with nothing left to lose. It seems to me they'd have a better chance at a decent government of their choice, and less casualties that way.
Ron_de_Jeremy Forum Posts (381)
I was always used and taken advantage off 
's are forgiven
RE: favorite way to be made love too...???
Gosh it feels so comfy... thanks