Price protests turn political in Iran as rallies spread - Page 19 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14913372
noir wrote:There is mo other way to contain the clerical regime. The Iranians should accept the strain period ahead.

Ok, I see what you are getting at. I'm not sure though that it's possible to just wait the mullahs out. They will transfer the strain to the population, who are likely to react against it.

Oxymandias wrote: I bet you that if I asked some big shot CEO in America who has a branch in Iran to point to Iran on a map, he wouldn't be able to tell me.

That idea is one big pile of crap.

Zam
#14913378
@Zamuel

ITT: People don't understand how the Iranian political system works

The worst that will happen is the removal of the prime minister from office or the mullahs taking control of the government. You have to understand that, unlike the Pahlavi regime, there is something called accountability in the current government. If you're prime minister or hold any position in the government, you can get impeached and the Iranian media is able to report on you if you screw up. I simply don't understand how you can assume that a totalitarian monarchy is more democratic and stable than a theocratic democracy. Yes, there are limits to what you can say, but that doesn't mean you aren't represented in the government and, because of this, this means that you have stake in the government itself. This is different from monarchy.
#14913405
Oxymandias wrote:People don't understand how the Iranian political system works


Sure they do … It's a basic parliamentary government, limited by dictatorial, clerical, oversight. At any point, theology just steps in and says "Ayatollah you NO!"

Image

a theocratic democracy. Yes, there are limits to what you can say, but that doesn't mean you aren't represented


Zam
#14913627
@Zamuel

Sure they do … It's a basic parliamentary government, limited by dictatorial, clerical, oversight. At any point, theology just steps in and says "Ayatollah you NO!"


That's my point. However, the Ayatollahs cannot trample on their own democracy because the people are effectively shareholders in the government and a variety of groups send representatives to discuss with the government on different policy decisions. In short, the Iranian political system is corporatist and is much more different than other parliamentary governments because it is also federalist instead of unitary.
#14913688
Oxymandias wrote:I simply don't understand how you can assume that a totalitarian monarchy is more democratic and stable than a theocratic democracy. Yes, there are limits to what you can say, but that doesn't mean you aren't represented in the government and, because of this, this means that you have stake in the government itself. This is different from monarchy.

Commercial media convinced Americans that the Shah was a good guy (because he sold oil so cheaply to Western oil companies) and anything else - especially communism (or "sharing") - had to be removed by force.

Our cartoonists and news reporters spent many years painting a picture of Iranian clerics as being close to satanic, while our capitalist class paint themselves as James Bond, or Superman.

Even our historical recall was deformed. On another page, Zamuel starts "the Iran issue" at the time that the Shah is overthrown by popular revolt. HE TOTALLY IGNORES that western capitalists CANCELLED the election of a communist. This is the most important part of the entire story - the USA's capitalist class is totally unable to respect the will of any nation on earth, including the one they share a country with. If Iranians choose communism, the USA poisons them with violence and/or sanctions.

The Shah was the kind of backwards government that capitalism prefers. Just look at Israel, Saudi Arabia, Queen Elizabeth, or American Christianity. - The 13th Century wants their worldview back...
#14913770
noir wrote:Yes, this arrangement to give the people some rights on domestic issues is known trick in totalitarian countries.

They have "rights" right up to the point the clerics jerk the chain and smack their asses with bamboo canes, and they know it.

Tell me again please, what's the name of that crazy guy, the one running around the streets of Iran shouting about, "No - No, the US is right, Israel is right, we must withdraw from Syria." (?)

Zam :roll:
#14913814
@Zamuel

Well it's certainly more democratic than the Shah regime.

@noir

Iranians voted for a president who wants a more open and liberal foreign policy. Yes, they have a say. Foreign policy is the one thing Iranians are able to talk about freely.

I'm not saying it's a true democracy and I would like you to quote where I said that. All I am saying is that the current regime at least has some democratic elements to it and does, to some extent, represent the people. Furthermore, in the current regime there is accountability and separation of powers. It's not democracy by any means but it's a start. We have some democratic institutions which can be used to create democracy. That doesn't mean Iran is a pure democracy.
#14913840
Oxymandias wrote:Well it's certainly more democratic than the Shah regime.

I'm not saying it's a true democracy

It's a sham, put up to delude those who wish to be deluded (like you apparently.)

The Shah was a monarch. Complaining about "lack of democracy" in an absolute monarchy is just stupid. Times were different then, you whine about his deficiencies, but the fact is, at that time, he was the *shining star of progress* in the ME.

Zam
#14913860
@Zamuel

Apparently you are unable to read given that, if you think that I believe the current regime is a democracy or you can't understand what the word "democratic" means. Being democratic doesn't mean you're a democracy. For example, HM's government would be democratic but that doesn't mean it's a democracy.

Which is the issue. Monarchy is a highly centralized form of government so the success of the government depends largely on the ruler and, as I have proven, the Shah was far from a stable ruler.

Ah yes, the old distant times of 1950. You know, that period where most of the world was full of democracies. How different times must've been.

Oh please, you're simply repeating the same rhetoric over and over again. "Shining star of progress"? I have disproven this presumption several times with actual evidence to back it up while you make these claims over and over again with nothing to support them. Let's be honest here, you have said nothing substantial at all throughout this debate. You have made nothing but make up stories about the Shah and tell anyone who questions their truthfulness to basically go fuck themselves. You clearly do not understand that when someone claims something, they have to back up that claim. You don't go around and tell people to go prove your point for you. No one is going to do that, because they're not the one saying that the Shah regime was awesome, you are. You don't tell other people to defend your beliefs for you, because it's not their beliefs.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 25
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Why would you Americans care? For years you got a[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]