Iran and Saudi Arabia

Which is worse?

Personally I think KSA but its very hard to choose between them

Saudi Arabia, at least they don't publicly threaten other groups/nations (especially Israel) with annihilation via staged demonstrations periodically. Also, SA is (slowly) modernizing compared to Iran which proudly proclaims it executes homosexuals just because they are homosexuals.

However, Iran has probably the most advanced transgendered policy/set of legal rights on the entire planet and women in Iran can vote without issues. Also women in KSA can still be punished for driving

Both brutally murder people for daring to live their personal lives as they see fit, so both regimes deserve overthrowal and subsequent no-quarter extermination. (I'm talking about the regimes, not the respective peoples)

Still, Tom is right: At least the Saudi ruler is trying to modernize the country, while the Iranians are trying to push it further into the Stone Age.

edited 7th Oct '11 6:45:43 AM by SavageHeathen

I think it's better to be female in Iran than Saudi Arabia. I'm not entirely sure, though.

@OP Better in what? Iran and Saudi Arabia both have their good points and bad points, but it depends on what you are measuring for/asking.

Well, there was a discussion going on in a previous thread about the cold war heating up and it being Evil Verus Evil between the two sides.

Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. Worse in what way?

Socio Political

Thats still too broad.

Well the two places are struggling with improving.

Saudi Arabia recently allowed women to vote, of course, Iran had that around for a long time already.

The Ayatollah also allowed sex change operations and the acceptance of homosexuality in the 70s in Iran, though the society is still extremely homophobe. Gay rights aren't very good there, to say the least, but being executed is not true. That said, there's good numbers to state that there are authorities who illegally abuse gays (up to murdering them) through made up reasons.

Iran is an actual democracy, an Islamic one, but still a democracy. It has it's problems and such but the government is elected, it leads people and it listens to demands. Ahmadinejad is a total populist assbag but you know, so was Dubya. Don't judge an entire people by one asscake politician.

Saudi Arabia is a through and through monarchy. Any rights gained today could be lost in the next succession. The same cannot be said for Iran.

Actually, Ahmadinejad is trying to modernise as well, such as giving more women's rights. Saudi Arabia only tried to modernise when whole bunches of people were rioting in the streets and then forcibly quelled with lethal weaponry. Plus Saudi Arabia is actively suppressing the Arab Spring in its own borders and outside. Iran hasn't been touched by the Arab Spring, which goes to show you what the domestic people think of the government and what our warped perception of the country obviously doesn't hold true for the people there. Don't say they're "too afraid", when thousands are dying in Syria.

The problems you brought up with monarchy are the same in Iran thanks to the existance of the Supreme Leader. The Dinner Jacket can do whatever he wants, but Khamanei can just as easily reverse the fortunes.

I agree with you on your other points however.

Well, to a point though, the Ayatollah has taken quite a back seat and the tradition of non-intervention is fairly powerful. I agree, it sucks, but it's more like the American senate were a bunch of theocrats (instead of, I guess corporate puppets :) ).

Normally true, but lately the Supreme Leader and President haven't been seeing eye to eye, otherwise I wouldn't even bring it up as a factor.

Are you sure about that? I understand the media has demonized Iran because they're not well liked by western governments, but I think you've gone a bit far in the opposite direction.

edited 7th Oct '11 1:15:39 PM by deathjavu

...Saudi Arabia.

There's also the US election protests in 2000 and the Supreme Court deciding that Bush should be the victor. That's what put me off from charging Iran over undemocratic practices since Ahmadinejad's victory. Of course, if you're from Europe or Canada or Australia/New Zealand, you'd have a much better leg to stand on and accuse Iran of being highly undemocratic over such an incident.

Regardless, the topic was to say which was better and Saudi Arabia doesn't even have elections. I guess they have those council things, I suppose it's like municipal level democracy.

So...because the US had fradulent elections, no one from the US can accuse Iran of being undemocratic.

Uh...ok? I'm thinking there's a fallacy in there somewhere. For starters, the degree of severity of the fraud; for seconds, outlining democratic as a binary "yes/no" question, rather than a continuum (which ties into the first).

Furthermore, I don't think the US response to those who claim election fraud was to detain and kill those who made the claims. So that's not a very good comparison.

Okay, I'll grant you that, democracy is not binary and sure, more liberal Americans can call on Iran's undemocratic practices. However, detaining/torturing/executing people IS a policy of the United States but I suppose it matters who you direct that policy against (ie. more against foreigners than against domestic people).

Still, Saudi Arabia's response to dissidents today was to drop the military hammer on them and kill everybody. Alongside Bahrain troops, they completely bulldozed an entire city square and killed everyone inside. Iran comes nowhere close to that.

Saudi Arabia is strange. Bribes its own citizens while suppressing other peoples' citizens.

...

Maybe they're using the money they make doing that to pay off their own people?

edited 7th Oct '11 2:56:49 PM by USAF713

Well they did actually take out their own dissidents with military power but we don't talk about it much. It's not on the scale of say... Gaddafi freaking airstriking civilians but still pretty bad. Their regular policy is to detain protesters forever without charges.

Saudi Arabia worse, Iran is better

1 > Iran is democracy, sure the gov is cheating, but the fact that they need to pretend they are democracy show Iranians people are more democratic

2 > Iran people are more secular than Saudis. many Iranians have reject Islamization since revolution, and have developed more secular thought in their home.

3 > Iran are multi-ethnic people, have city tradition, and power of tribes are more limited.

4 > Iran Regime have genuine debate and disagreement among them, even Reformist like Khatami were former member of the regime, parliament also regularly fight with President

5 > Iran had more tradition of constitutionalism, democracy, and rebellion than Saudis. they have launched constitutional movement against Qajar, launched anti-imperialist movement during Mossadegh, they also previously have strong labor union and communist movement.

6 > Women Movement more widespread and stronger in Iran than in Saudi. Green Revolution partly supported by women movement.

Well, I based my decision partially on the fact that the Saudis are moving towards more reform (last I checked, anyhow) and partially on the fact that the Saudis don't passively want to kill me and every other 312 million American around me for our government supporting Israel.

What reason, in that context, would I have to want to support Iran over Saudi Arabia?

Well, luckily not all people live in America.

And Iranians don't have always that negative reaction to America, they have candlelight vigil after 9/11.

don't forget that Bin Laden is Saudis, and Saudi curriculum and donation provide for producing a lot of terrorist worldwide.

Plus one king reform is not as weighty as repeated (successful and unsuccessful) people attempt to revolt and reform.

...so the only reason Iran and the US aren't better friends today is Israel?

...

~sigh~