International ForumAfrican & International Bloggers' home. Politics, Economics & News in General. Let's exchange our views on matters arising in this globe! YES, we can!
By Charting StockSee also:-Lights turned off on media after elections: The AFP news agency reported that Iran’s wireless telephone network was shut down at 5:30pm GMT (10:00pm in Tehran), just as incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was making a television appearance to congratulate himself on a "great victory". See also:-Landslide or Fraud? The Debate Online Over Iran’s Election Results: We will bring you updates throughout the day and encourage Iranian readers to share their thoughts and experiences with us.
June 13, 2009 "Charting Stocks" -- -Was the Iranian election a fraud? That’s what our great western media sources want us to believe. While scanning through the coverage, I could not find one mainstream news article which covered the election results in an objective, unbiased manner. Either prominently displayed in the title or first paragraph, each of the articles suggest the election was a fraud. The obvious question arises - If their electoral system can’t be trusted, why were they watching the results so “closely” in the first place? I’d probably find better things to do then obsess over the results of a rigged game, but hey that’s just me.
It’s worth noting that Iran, unlike the US, does not use electronic voting machines which are easily tampered with. They actually have paper ballots. It’s also important to point out the health of their electoral process. They had an 85% turnout! We, “the champions of democracy” turnout only a fraction of that percentage for our presidential elections. In fact 2 out of 3 American citizens find something better to do during election day.
Reuters Iran’s election result staggers analysts
Hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated moderate challenger Mirhossein Mousavi by a surprisingly wide margin in Iran’s presidential election, official results showed on Saturday. Mousavi derided the tally as a “dangerous charade.’
Fox News: U.S. Monitoring Iran’s Election Results
U.S. officials are casting doubt over the results of Iran’s election, in which the government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner Saturday…U.S. analysts find it “not credible [Notice the usual UN-NAMED "US Officials and Analysts]
MSNBC: Violence flares as Ahmadinejad wins Iran vote Riot police battled with protesters Saturday as officials announced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won a landslide election victory. His opponent denounced the results as ‘treason’….Ahmadinejad had the apparent backing of the ruling theocracy.
CNN: Ahmadinejad wins landslide in disputed election
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been declared the big winner in the country’s election, but his chief rival and supporters in the Tehran streets are crying foul.
The Iranian government declared an outright election victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday morning, and riot police officers fought with supporters of the opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, who insisted that the election had been stolen.
Time Magazine: Protests Greet Ahmadinejad Win in Iran: ‘It’s Not Possible!
Iran’s Interior Minister announced Saturday that incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won 63.29% of the vote in the nation’s closely watched presidential poll. The announcement, greeted with widespread skepticism by Iranian opposition supporters and by foreign analysts, has brought thousands of people onto the streets where they have encountered a strong police presence and the threat of violence.
Was the election stolen? According to the Iranian Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli, there has been no ‘written complaint’ about voter fraud. He declared that the presidential elections were conducted in a manner that ruled out the possibility of voter fraud. “No violations that may have influenced the vote have been reported, and we have received no written complaint,” he said in response to a question posed by an Italian reporter.
It’s also worth mentioning that contrary to what our media would have us believe, Ahmadinejad doesn’t have much power in Iran. The President is not the most powerful person in the country. He is not the commander in chief and does not control the army and the intelligence and security services. He does not have the power to go to war. Those powers are reserved for the supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Khomeini.
__________________
“I am the punishment of God... If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”
'O Allah! Keep me alive as long as life is better for me, and let me die if death is better for me.
Mfano wangu nimeuangalia, na sidhani kama una kosa. Wewe umetoa jibu kwa kusema kuwa choice will depend on the individual reasoning. Hizo individual reasonings umesema ni kama duka la ndugu, rafiki, etc. Sasa tukubalieni moja, huwezi kuanzisha biashara kwa kutegemea ndugu as wanunuzi. Unajenga biashara kutokana na wateja. Tuondoe price competition maana umesema imekuwa set na govt. Kuna vitu vingine vingi ambavyo watu wana-compete on kwa kusudi la kupata wateja. Kwa mfano, better looking environment/mandhari (eg: show rooms), better service (kupokelewa ukiingia dukani, etc), kuweka fani dukani, kuweka wauza sura, nk. My point, popote pale panapokuwa na biashara, lazima kuwe na competition. It's just there, and there is no way around it. Kama unaona ipo, i'm open to hearing them.
Set prices zinaleta kudorora kwa service na innovation. R & D is one of the most expensive sectors katika biashara, na cost yake inakuwa passed to consumers. Kwa nini basi consumer a-accept kulipa zaidi? Ni kwa sababu ya wanapata a superior product.
As i said earlier, based on the theory of evolution. Kama wewe hukubaliani na hiyo theory, hayo ni yako. It's there in existance, you only have to open your eyes to see it. Ukienda kwenye mbuga za wanyama ipo. Ukija kwenye everyday life ipo. It exists in school, it exist between companies, it exists in everything we do, including kupata mchumba, nk. We are built to compete. Sasa watu ambao wanadhani Darwin aliandika upuuzi na kusifiwa bure, hilo ni juu yao.
Ulisema earlier kuwa religious leaders would have something to say about that. Hapa hatuongelei mwanadamu ametoka wapi, tunaongelea aspect ya competition, na survival, which is a major part of that theory.
Katika mfano wako, umetoa facts zinazoangalia upande mmoja. Kwanza umesema wa pili kufungua ni kwa sababu aliona supply haitoshi. Ni yupi alifungua wakati demand na supply zipo equal? Aliyefungua baada ya hapo, ndio aliyeleta competition na sio circumstances. Maana hilo duka halijatokea tu, bali kuna mtu aliyekaa na kufikiri kuwa ataweza kwenda ku-compete na hao wengine. I would think mfano wako sio mzuri. I get your point, lakini mfano wako hauipeleki point golini.
Mkuu China na Russia are NK's closest allies, because they share common features in the international community:
1. They are all single-party states
2. They had alligned themselves together in the Korean war in the 50s,
3. They had practiced socialism together in the past. 2 failed, one is acting in a defiant manner.
4. They boarder each other, so in reality, China and Russia will be affected by NK's actions.
wewe umechagua fact moja ya u-socialism, na kuiweka mezani. Typical lawyering skill...hehehe!
I dont regard capitalism as an extreme view, it simply reflects human nature. Hizo governments zinazotoa handouts while preaching capitalism are acting/performing their responsibility. If you expect a government not to act in time of need, when do you propose it should act? There were mistakes made, the government moves in to correct them. It may correct them further by implementing laws to govern such situations. Hiyo ndio kazi ya serikali katika system.
Mh., personally i do not know what we're debating anymore but it seems your understanding of Ujamaa was bound to fail and one major concerns of yours was, we are naturally competitive, individuals.
i made my case being, it encourtered lots of resistance from the west as it did not suit their way of thinking. i'm not sure we agreed or not but it seems ur arguments have moved to our competitive nature rather than the main topic we started with. therefore im assuming i have to prove to u that we are not competitive naturally au labda im losing the plot of this debate.
OK your persistent on that theory of evolution but you have to remember it has no 100% evidence, especially the bit where it explains how life started so its pure speculation that is a fact. and that is why i said religious figures would have something to say about that. so try live 5% out on issue like this, however that is totaly entirely up to you.
about our competitive nature if your arguments are based on this theory then you haven't explored much on our history as humans, especially the history of our civilization. if you had then you'd have understood that its society that shapes us and we do not shape it.
let me give you a bit of history of our civilization its over 10,000yrs to-date, again partly speculations but based on carbon dated evidence of tools and early houses, scientist had to come to that conclusion. prior to that man lived as foragers(hunters and gathers). in late 1890 to mid 1950 anthropologist spend lots of time studying surviving bands living like this one of those were the Ju'hoansi of Kalahari in Namibia this area was protected from the invasion of mass modern thinking humans, so that to understand how these people survived in their natural habitant well guess, what they were sharers and highly against competition and individualism because the nature of survival depended much on a band things like hunting games and protection of women and children against wild animals. im giving you a short version if you want more its for u to do the research.
guess what other anthropologist studying other remaining foraigang bands such as Inuit in Alaska, Aborigine in Australia, Mbuti in Congo, etc, etc all different researchers came up with similar results they were shareres due to the natural of survival. your looking at the current world trapped under capitalism of course you'd see competition.
ps: i advice you do your research properly before harshly jumping to conclusions.i had to answer as a gesture of respect but now i'll be just an observer of JF goodkluck.
another thing i never said capitalism was an extremist view my point was ur a firm believer of the ideology that ur un willing to scrutinize its weakness, which of course is wrong nothing is perfect again evidence on the current market crush and the bailouts of the sytem be open minded regardless of the view you choose goodluck
Mh., personally i do not know what we're debating anymore but it seems your understanding of Ujamaa was bound to fail and one major concerns of yours was, we are naturally competitive, individuals.
i made my case being, it encourtered lots of resistance from the west as it did not suit their way of thinking. i'm not sure we agreed or not but it seems ur arguments have moved to our competitive nature rather than the main topic we started with. therefore im assuming i have to prove to u that we are not competitive naturally au labda im losing the plot of this debate.
Just to recount, we were debating on the reasons for the failure of socialism. You argued that it was because of the resistance it faced from the west, and i disagree, point out to the faults within it(socialism), i.e: it's aim of eliminating the competitive nature that is part and parcel of humans. So far, this is where the debate has reached.
Quote:
OK your persistent on that theory of evolution but you have to remember it has no 100% evidence, especially the bit where it explains how life started so its pure speculation that is a fact. and that is why i said religious figures would have something to say about that. so try live 5% out on issue like this, however that is totaly entirely up to you.
It seems kuwa theory ya evolution inakuuma kwa ndani. Dont know why, but that's the message i am getting. Hapa hatu-debate where humans came from, that is on another level, hapa tunaongelea nature ya humans iliyokuwa represented ndani ya hiyo theory - yaani survival of the fittest. My argument has been, whether the evolution of human is right or wrong, we can still prove the existance of competition for survival within us. Yaani hiyo part ya theory iko correct. Inaelekea wewe huijui, na unadhani mimi na-base argument yangu katika mwanzo wa binadamu.
I have pointed out to the everyday proof of the existance of this part of the theory and you have failed to dis-prove them.
Quote:
about our competitive nature if your arguments are based on this theory then you haven't explored much on our history as humans, especially the history of our civilization. if you had then you'd have understood that its society that shapes us and we do not shape it.
let me give you a bit of history of our civilization its over 10,000yrs to-date, again partly speculations but based on carbon dated evidence of tools and early houses, scientist had to come to that conclusion. prior to that man lived as foragers(hunters and gathers). in late 1890 to mid 1950 anthropologist spend lots of time studying surviving bands living like this one of those were the Ju'hoansi of Kalahari in Namibia this area was protected from the invasion of mass modern thinking humans, so that to understand how these people survived in their natural habitant well guess, what they were sharers and highly against competition and individualism because the nature of survival depended much on a band things like hunting games and protection of women and children against wild animals. im giving you a short version if you want more its for u to do the research.
guess what other anthropologist studying other remaining foraigang bands such as Inuit in Alaska, Aborigine in Australia, Mbuti in Congo, etc, etc all different researchers came up with similar results they were shareres due to the natural of survival. your looking at the current world trapped under capitalism of course you'd see competition.
wewe umeishia kutoa mifano yako mmoja mmoja wa ku-counter prove the competitive theory. Mfano ulikuwa wa NK, sasa umekuja na huu. Sawa twende na mifano yako. Where are these societies? Have they managed to develop as compare to the other societies which have embraced competition among its members? These societies you have referred to live in the most extreme of conditions. They need each other just for pure survival. One lives in the dessert, the other in rainforest and the last in artict conditions. What would you expect from such societies. The conditions they live in, i.e: lack of food and need for shelter, etc, occupies their need, that they do not get time to compete. Such conditions cater for a society based living. You can argue this might be a better example of proving circumstances cause human reaction than the ice cream one you provided earlier....hehehe! But may argument stands, these societies have been pushed to the brink of extinction by our more dominant societies which had allowed for their best products to live on through competition. Kama wangekuwa na a better system, wao ndo wangekuwa na maendeleo na sio sisi.
Quote:
ps: i advice you do your research properly before harshly jumping to conclusions.i had to answer as a gesture of respect but now i'll be just an observer of JF goodkluck.
I have done my research. I know what i am talking about. You have just failed to defend your position, causing you to turn the argument into a research issue. Goodluck with being an observer. Failure to argue should not deter you from competing. On the contrary, it should urge you to make better arguments.
Quote:
another thing i never said capitalism was an extremist view my point was ur a firm believer of the ideology that ur un willing to scrutinize its weakness, which of course is wrong nothing is perfect again evidence on the current market crush and the bailouts of the sytem be open minded regardless of the view you choose goodluck
I never said capitalism is perfect. I just disagree with socialism, as i believe it totaly contradicts human's nature. I am competitive by nature, and i would not live in a society that supresses my ability to compete. Competition allows for the weak to be replaced with the strong, for the better survival of human's race.
Just to recount, we were debating on the reasons for the failure of socialism. You argued that it was because of the resistance it faced from the west, and i disagree, point out to the faults within it(socialism), i.e: it's aim of eliminating the competitive nature that is part and parcel of humans. So far, this is where the debate has reached.
It seems kuwa theory ya evolution inakuuma kwa ndani. Dont know why, but that's the message i am getting. Hapa hatu-debate where humans came from, that is on another level, hapa tunaongelea nature ya humans iliyokuwa represented ndani ya hiyo theory - yaani survival of the fittest. My argument has been, whether the evolution of human is right or wrong, we can still prove the existance of competition for survival within us. Yaani hiyo part ya theory iko correct. Inaelekea wewe huijui, na unadhani mimi na-base argument yangu katika mwanzo wa binadamu.
I have pointed out to the everyday proof of the existance of this part of the theory and you have failed to dis-prove them.
wewe umeishia kutoa mifano yako mmoja mmoja wa ku-counter prove the competitive theory. Mfano ulikuwa wa NK, sasa umekuja na huu. Sawa twende na mifano yako. Where are these societies? Have they managed to develop as compare to the other societies which have embraced competition among its members? These societies you have referred to live in the most extreme of conditions. They need each other just for pure survival. One lives in the dessert, the other in rainforest and the last in artict conditions. What would you expect from such societies. The conditions they live in, i.e: lack of food and need for shelter, etc, occupies their need, that they do not get time to compete. Such conditions cater for a society based living. You can argue this might be a better example of proving circumstances cause human reaction than the ice cream one you provided earlier....hehehe! But may argument stands, these societies have been pushed to the brink of extinction by our more dominant societies which had allowed for their best products to live on through competition. Kama wangekuwa na a better system, wao ndo wangekuwa na maendeleo na sio sisi.
I have done my research. I know what i am talking about. You have just failed to defend your position, causing you to turn the argument into a research issue. Goodluck with being an observer. Failure to argue should not deter you from competing. On the contrary, it should urge you to make better arguments.
I never said capitalism is perfect. I just disagree with socialism, as i believe it totaly contradicts human's nature. I am competitive by nature, and i would not live in a society that supresses my ability to compete. Competition allows for the weak to be replaced with the strong, for the better survival of human's race.
Kwa heri!
Mh., mtoto if u you took it, me choosing to be an observer is due to not justifying my arguments then i think i have to clear my position before i signoff.
debating has many angles, lawyers go to court to justy and try to interpret the law, therefore its the battle of words based on what law says. not guilty until proven so without a reasonable doubt. on the other hand scientific debates (social sciences) are based purely on proven evidence rather than speculation.
if i'm correct you centred our natural compepetive-ness due to the way we are built (the nature within us) and Darwin theory proved so. Ok for starters Darwin was not a Social Theorist (Psychologist, Sociologist nor an Anthropologist) he was Palaentologist, therefore he dealt mostly with carcasses, especially old age ones in trying to prove the connections of our evolution that we have with other species. Second his survival of the fittest ideology he mostly used on early molecules formation (early life under water) he claims that early life was not stable, therefore matter returned into particles easily therefore life occured to those molecules which formatted a strong bond, this is where his survival of the fittest ideology began. He then went on to suggest this survival of the fittest ideology during the times where all creatures shared the same environment, and the context of it was purely based on the food chain of the time, what creature ate what creature for its survival, the weaker creature did not make it as they ended being at the bottom of the food chain. this terminology is like like Freud's libido most people use it has highsex drive, but freud himself had a different interpretition of it. third and lastly Darwin has never done a reseach on how societies are formed nor how people intercact in society this is why i keep insisting you do your research properly matter of fact most of his research work was done in isolated Islands of Galapagos investigating species.
another thing you keep insisting that we have natural tendency towards competition, i gave you a scientific evidence of the foraging societies, that those communities were far apart as continental distance, with different atmospheric surrounding, but as hunters and gatherers they shared a common life style of sharing naturally, on the naked eye it may seems that is what they were naturally. but exploring, them you'll find they have to if they are to survive, as i mentioned this was life before man started farming, therefore humans had figured out in the survival of the fittest era to deal with large beast they have to be a team or else they could be an easy target as individuals, clearly that was the case au? if so then humans are resonable people.
lastly since we are reasonable then we adopt to new situations to fulfill our needs as humans hapa tunarudi tena kwenye Capitalism yako, the structure creates competition therefore again on the naked it may appear humans are competitive individiuals, no we are not just as the foragers are not sharers but we adopt to the environment we have to survive.
while on the same topic of capitalism. this method was not created for humans to compete at first, the whole thing was based on exploitation of humans and creating social pyramid at first. the earliest form of captialims was that of Kingdoms and ruling classes, as more people joined the ruling classes it moved into ancient slavery (such as Egyptian, Greek and Roman), it moved into Fiefdom, Feudalism and lastly the African slave trade, early merchants relied on wealthy upper classes at first to finance their voyages, before the banks decided to jump on the lucrative slave trade, however though it has spread worldly bit it mainly based on greedy rather than competition. for instance today less than 10% (people)of the world population own almost 90%(wealth). since humans are caught up by birth in this ideology then humans have to learn where do they want to end up in this new pryamid. this is where our competitive-ness begin. because the systems has owners at the top and workers at the bottom. so workers have to offer their manpower, manual, admin, research etc, etc basen on the level of edu. deters where you are likely to fit in the organisation.
this is not to say we are competitive, kama ulivyosema we ni mmbishi na competitive but i think that is, more to do with being given too much attention with fellow students, having most your all the time rather than being naturally Mmbishi. this argument lies more in the lines of Pavlov, Skinner, Rogers, Freud, Vygotsky, Durkheim, Maslow etc, etc or else to say we naturally competitive based on Darwin ni kulopoka tu Mkuu, if we can go there to prove that yes i'm there or else good-bye unless otherwise.
Mh., mtoto if u you took it, me choosing to be an observer is due to not justifying my arguments then i think i have to clear my position before i signoff.
debating has many angles, lawyers go to court to justy and try to interpret the law, therefore its the battle of words based on what law says. not guilty until proven so without a reasonable doubt. on the other hand scientific debates (social sciences) are based purely on proven evidence rather than speculation.
if i'm correct you centred our natural compepetive-ness due to the way we are built (the nature within us) and Darwin theory proved so. Ok for starters Darwin was not a Social Theorist (Psychologist, Sociologist nor an Anthropologist) he was Palaentologist, therefore he dealt mostly with carcasses, especially old age ones in trying to prove the connections of our evolution that we have with other species. Second his survival of the fittest ideology he mostly used on early molecules formation (early life under water) he claims that early life was not stable, therefore matter returned into particles easily therefore life occured to those molecules which formatted a strong bond, this is where his survival of the fittest ideology began. He then went on to suggest this survival of the fittest ideology during the times where all creatures shared the same environment, and the context of it was purely based on the food chain of the time, what creature ate what creature for its survival, the weaker creature did not make it as they ended being at the bottom of the food chain. this terminology is like like Freud's libido most people use it has highsex drive, but freud himself had a different interpretition of it. third and lastly Darwin has never done a reseach on how societies are formed nor how people intercact in society this is why i keep insisting you do your research properly matter of fact most of his research work was done in isolated Islands of Galapagos investigating species.
another thing you keep insisting that we have natural tendency towards competition, i gave you a scientific evidence of the foraging societies, that those communities were far apart as continental distance, with different atmospheric surrounding, but as hunters and gatherers they shared a common life style of sharing naturally, on the naked eye it may seems that is what they were naturally. but exploring, them you'll find they have to if they are to survive, as i mentioned this was life before man started farming, therefore humans had figured out in the survival of the fittest era to deal with large beast they have to be a team or else they could be an easy target as individuals, clearly that was the case au? if so then humans are resonable people.
lastly since we are reasonable then we adopt to new situations to fulfill our needs as humans hapa tunarudi tena kwenye Capitalism yako, the structure creates competition therefore again on the naked it may appear humans are competitive individiuals, no we are not just as the foragers are not sharers but we adopt to the environment we have to survive.
while on the same topic of capitalism. this method was not created for humans to compete at first, the whole thing was based on exploitation of humans and creating social pyramid at first. the earliest form of captialims was that of Kingdoms and ruling classes, as more people joined the ruling classes it moved into ancient slavery (such as Egyptian, Greek and Roman), it moved into Fiefdom, Feudalism and lastly the African slave trade, early merchants relied on wealthy upper classes at first to finance their voyages, before the banks decided to jump on the lucrative slave trade, however though it has spread worldly bit it mainly based on greedy rather than competition. for instance today less than 10% (people)of the world population own almost 90%(wealth). since humans are caught up by birth in this ideology then humans have to learn where do they want to end up in this new pryamid. this is where our competitive-ness begin. because the systems has owners at the top and workers at the bottom. so workers have to offer their manpower, manual, admin, research etc, etc basen on the level of edu. deters where you are likely to fit in the organisation.
this is not to say we are competitive, kama ulivyosema we ni mmbishi na competitive but i think that is, more to do with being given too much attention with fellow students, having most your all the time rather than being naturally Mmbishi. this argument lies more in the lines of Pavlov, Skinner, Rogers, Freud, Vygotsky, Durkheim, Maslow etc, etc or else to say we naturally competitive based on Darwin ni kulopoka tu Mkuu, if we can go there to prove that yes i'm there or else good-bye unless otherwise.
First and foremost...safi mkuu kwa kurudi na kuweka majibu sahihi! Heshima mbele as usual! Majibu yako yamekaa vizuri sana. It shows am not dealing with an idiot! Naona umetupa majina mengi, not sure if you fully know the persons and their theories au ni majina tu umeyatupa. But nonetheless nitakupa a benefit of the doubt. I will definately get back, siwezi kukuacha bila jibu. Ninachukua muda kukufanyia research unayohitaji, maana mwanzo nilikuwa nakudharau.
Umenifurahisha sana na closure yako kwa kusema mimi ni mbishi kwa sababu ninapata attention ya bure kutoka kwa wenzangu...lol! Trust me, when u r the only african in a 200+ class, u dont get attention ya bure. U have to prove ur ability. Anyway...poa will get back to answer the issue on debate.
We already have such a system sema it's not official and the power is not vested in one man per say but in one party. Serikali ni ya CCM, bunge 80% in CCM. Raisi tayari ana nguvu nchi which can not be challenged. Mahakama ambacho kingekua chombo cha kutetea haki za wananchi bila kuogopa viongozi nayo ina influence ya CCM. CCM has all the power in the country and whoever controls CCM is the Ayatollah of Tanzania. Nchi isipo kuwa na checks and balances jua kuna mtu mmoja au kikundi kimoja chenye all the say. Personally nataka system ya checks and balances Tanzania because history has proven us time and time again that we can't trust one man to have all the power in Tanzania.
Huu ni ukweli mtupu. hata kama wakubwa wetu wataendelea kukanusha. Madaraka yoote kwa mtu mmoja. Akiwa kilaza itabidi kila mtu awe kilaza.Hapo sasa
14th June 2009, 06:23 AM
Re: US Media Campaign to Discredit Iranian Election
14th June 2009, 06:23 AM
Linear Mode
