| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/28/2005 9:34:25 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked at poster’s request. |
Posted on 01/22/2005 2:03:08 AM PST by F14 Pilot
"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation… America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom."
Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran, who was watching President George W Bush's speech on television at his hotel in London, noted the language. He was relieved that the phrase "regime change" was not used.
He believes that American military intervention in Iran would be wrong: "Iranians are not willing to buy freedom at any cost. They do not want the freedom of an American general marching in. It is a matter of national pride. We do not need an American soldier to save us."
Mr Pahlavi, 44, has been actively campaigning for secular democracy in Iran since September 11. He says that it is only the regime that stands between an educated, well-resourced country and the free world: "All the unemployment and poverty in Iran is a by-product of political asphyxia."
But Mr Pahlavi says that the rising against the regime must come from within. He looks to the Ukraine or Yugoslavia as a model and rejects comparisons with Iraq: "Iran has a different history, polity, totally different scenarios. Our society is more dynamic and capable. We don't need teachers from American universities to come and teach us about democracy."
What Mr Pahlavi wants from Europe and America is "support for the Iranian people. This means refusing to deal with the regime".
He is particularly opposed to any weapons for trade negotiations: "Other countries should take a principled position on the regime. They must not be seen to cut a deal, at the expense of the Iranian people." There has been little reporting of protests against the regime since the elections last year but Mr Pahlavi's adviser, who asked not to be named, claimed the frustration is at boiling point, particularly among students.
"President Khatami addressed a meeting recently and the students started chanting 'shame on you'. It was moving," he says.
The opposition in Iraq is fastening on the May presidential elections as the moment to force the collapse of the regime. Petitions are being compiled on the internet for a referendum. The opposition claims that the election will be hollow.
"Saddam had elections," says Mr Pahlavi. "Let's not be infatuated by elections." Will the Pentagon have the patience to wait for an internal uprising? A report this week by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker revealed that special forces are already on the ground in Iran.
Mr Pahlavi responds that America must anticipate scenarios but he again rebuffs any sort of intervention. He will not accept, for instance, an American bombing of nuclear installations in Iran to pave the way for a popular uprising. He says that this would immediately strengthen the position of the Mullahs. "It has to be the right mechanism," he says.
He agrees that the stakes are high. Iraq has little chance of becoming a stable country while Iran is supporting insurgency there. "Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq," says Mr Pahlavi. "It is already in there."
He is also clear about the purpose of Iranian Mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons: "It is to blackmail the rest of the world." He says the regime is acutely aware that it is exposed by the toppled tyrannies on its borders and is ready to lash out.
Is he pushing for a restoration of the monarchy as part of a new Iran? "My political mission is over the day that Iranians have the freedom to go to the polls," he says.
Long live the Shah! As an American monarchist I am delighted to see Iranian support for Reza Pahlavi. It is shameful the way many Americans think that because their country is republic, other countries should be as well. It is shameful the way many Americans think that because we do not have titles in our country, titled persons from those countries that do have that tradition can be insulted and denigrated. I just wanted to make sure you knew that not all Americans think that way.
Thank you for your comments. The kneejerk hostility to royalty displayed by some on this site is essentially Jacobin and antithetical to authentic conservatism.
I hope I live to see the day when Iran restores the monarchy.
What is your problem? Just because we don't have titles in the US, we can't acknowledge those of people who come from a different tradition? Thomas Jefferson is not God, and his war propaganda does not apply to the whole world for all time. The American way is not necessarily what is best for any other country. If royalty and titles are part of a country's culture and traditions, as they are part of Iran's, then that should be respected.
I suppose you think all the Americans who have enthusiastically followed the British royal family over the years, and to whom titles obviously mean something, have "chains in their brains." Whatever.
Says who? Crown Prince Reza is the eldest son of a monarch who reigned for 38 years and was an ally of the United States. There's no reason not to use his title.
Lincoln was a tyrant.
I saw your personal page and agree with you about Lincoln. It is ironic for you to be so dismissive of royalty and titles. Did you know that the European monarchies all sympathized with the Confederacy? Or that the short-lived Mexican monarchy had much better relations with the Confederate government than with Lincoln's? After the end of the "Civil War," a number of Confederate soldiers went south and offered their services to Emperor Maximilian. The South was the more hierarchical, traditional, and agrarian society, and so monarchism and support for the Confederacy naturally go hand in hand.
Wonder what Pahlavi thinks about Jimmah Carter!! Stupid people of America Elected Jimmah Carter and brought about ALL this Muslim terrorist crap.
I'm sure he dislikes Jimmah!
No problem. I'm just a free person.
Unless that is, you think my lacking of a compulsion to bend at the knee to a fancy title is a problem.
Just because we don't have titles in the US, we can't acknowledge those of people who come from a different tradition?
Exactly. We don't. Other "traditions" allow for all sorts of injustices. In some cultures, slavery is a time honored "tradition". If one of those slaves comes to the U.S., should we "honor" their title and make sure they have their freedoms curtailed? It's the same thing as honoring the title of prince, except coming from the other direction.
Here in the U.S., we have our own "traditions". Ones we have earned through our own genius, blood, and sweat. We only honor titles that have been earned, such as Doctor, Master of Science, or Captain. Titles aquired through accident of birth have no meaning here. We bow to no one. Our commander in chief is called Mr. President. While Mr. Reza Pahlavi is here, as a guest of this country, he will follow our traditions and remain Mr. Reza Pahlavi, because, here in the United States, the title of Private First Class holds more weight and meaning then "Crown Prince Anything".
Thomas Jefferson is not God,
If you think I was implying that or basing my argument on that, then you hust don't Get It.
and his war propaganda
And if you think his writings on the Rights of Man were mere war propaganda, then you really don't Get It. You neither understand his words, nor comprehend the rights he described. Tell me (I am assuming you are in the U.S.), do you enjoy those rights and freedoms his writings described and we fought two bloody wars to protect?
does not apply to the whole world for all time.
I disagree. Be that as it may be, though, Mr. Reza Pahlavi is not "out there" in the "whole world". He is here, in the United States. And our traditions of individual equality and liberty do still apply here (despite the best efforts of the democrats).
The American way is not necessarily what is best for any other country.
I beg to differ. However, you may be right. It could be that not everyone out there is capable of handling the awesome burden of freedom and liberty. It definitely appears that, at least on this message board, there are some people who would prefer to be comfortable little slaves and subjects rathern than stand up, grow up, and be free.
If royalty and titles are part of a country's culture and traditions, as they are part of Iran's, then that should be respected.
If Iranians want to practice the folly of respecting royalty and inherited titles, that is their business. We, as free people, are obliged to no such subservience.
I suppose you think all the Americans who have enthusiastically followed the British royal family over the years,
I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves.
The first group are no different from Americans who read the tabloids and follow the lives of hollywood celebrities. The second group are those for whom the study of the british royal family is a hobby, much like trainspotting or stamp collecting. They are similar to those Americans who have deeply studied the fantasy works of J.R.R. Tolkein. Their study and knowledge may be very exacting and comprehensive, but it is of a subject without any real truth to it, and only has meaning and importance to other Tolkein or british royalty scholars.
and to whom titles obviously mean something, have "chains in their brains."
And this brings up the third group. These are the true believer monarchists. You call yourself one, yes? These are the ones who actually want to be subjects, or peasants, or slaves (it's just a matter of degree). They crave a position in an artificial heirarchy because they lack the capacity to stand tall, free, and equal. Freedom is scary, after all. They do not appreciate the sacrifices spent by those who gave so much to forge the liberty and freedom they now enjoy. They should go back to England (or wherever) and hold their tongues when they speak to free people (who, in this case, probably are their betters). Their words are without meaning for free people, and their desires are an insult to all the good free people who have sacrificed so much for the freedoms they so lightly cast away.
I found this impossible to pass up:
"No problem. I'm just a free person."
I would like a definition of that, personally I wouldn't call having to continue to pay the government for land I already own being "free", personally I often feel like I can't blow my nose without running into some sort of federal regulation telling me how to live my life. Being free is a complicated term.
"Unless that is, you think my lacking of a compulsion to bend at the knee to a fancy title is a problem."
No, I think the problem was your refusal to recognize someone's legitimate status. If anyone suggested Americans should kneel to anyone I must have missed it.
"Exactly. We don't. Other "traditions" allow for all sorts of injustices. In some cultures, slavery is a time honored "tradition". If one of those slaves comes to the U.S., should we "honor" their title and make sure they have their freedoms curtailed? It's the same thing as honoring the title of prince, except coming from the other direction."
Okay, so in other words the rest of the world should respect our traditions, but we should respect none of theirs, got it.
"We only honor titles that have been earned, such as Doctor, Master of Science, or Captain. Titles aquired through accident of birth have no meaning here."
That is simply absurd, if you think everyone with a title actually earned it you must have the all-seeing eye of God in your head.
"We bow to no one. Our commander in chief is called Mr. President."
Actually, OTHER world leaders are expected to address him as "His Excellency", which they do, just as the President addresses the Queen of England as "Her Majesty" out of simple respect for other people's institutions.
"While Mr. Reza Pahlavi is here, as a guest of this country, he will follow our traditions and remain Mr. Reza Pahlavi, because, here in the United States, the title of Private First Class holds more weight and meaning then "Crown Prince Anything".
Legally, the U.S. recognizes no hereditary titles whatsoever, there's no law anywhere that says people must be polite and courteous, yet centuries of experience has taught us things go better when we are.
(snip)
"You neither understand his words, nor comprehend the rights he described. Tell me (I am assuming you are in the U.S.), do you enjoy those rights and freedoms his writings described and we fought two bloody wars to protect?"
Then explain to me why America is nothing at all like what Jefferson talked about?
"I disagree. Be that as it may be, though, Mr. Reza Pahlavi is not "out there" in the "whole world". He is here, in the United States. And our traditions of individual equality and liberty do still apply here (despite the best efforts of the democrats)."
Yet you would deny him the individual liberty to use the title of his own ancestors, you're right up there with the Democrats trying to choke off someone's rightful inheritance. I must say the "Amerika Uber Alles" line is a new on me though. (Why we're so unpopular I'll never know...)
(snip same world conquest content)
"If Iranians want to practice the folly of respecting royalty and inherited titles, that is their business. We, as free people, are obliged to no such subservience."
Who was suggesting we were? I'm not obliged to treat anyone with respect, yet a little bit can be a big help.
"I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves."
That's just funny, "Oh, I is sorry Massah Lizzy, please don't beat be none..."
> No problem. I'm just a free person.
I would like a definition of that, personally I wouldn't call having to continue to pay the government for land I already own being "free", personally I often feel like I can't blow my nose without running into some sort of federal regulation telling me how to live my life. Being free is a complicated term.
When I'm speaking of "freedom" here, I mean "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer".
That being said, you are right, many of our freedoms here in the United States have been curtailed. I also think of property tax as a usurpation of my property rights. The problem is that, through a certain amount of laziness and corruption as well as a series of concessions to people who would rather be comfortable slaves (or welfare recipients) than free, we have allowed this country to veer away from the ideals of our founders. Instead, we should have been, and still should strive to come ever closer to their vision.
No, I think the problem was your refusal to recognize someone's legitimate status.
It's not a refusal to recognize their legitimate claim to the title. I refuse to accept the title's legitimacy. Mr. Reza Pahlavi's ancestor, Reza Khan, was just minister of war under the last Ghajar king before staging a coup and declaring himself Shah in the 20's. And so it is with all "royal" lines if you go far back enough. They are all descended from either a bully who siezed power (regardless of their motives or how they later used that power) or were puppets emplaced by another bully. They are not special. They are not legitimate. They are no different than you or I.
Okay, so in other words the rest of the world should respect our traditions, but we should respect none of theirs, got it.
Where those traditions are absolutely antithetical to our traditions, yes. We founded this country to leave those traditions behind us. Here, in the United States, a slave in another country is just a man (though we had to fight the worst war in our history to finally learn that). A prince in another country is just a man. That is a principle this country was founded on. Just as we have lost our way on property rights (like you mention), we have lost our way on basic human dignity and equality (though some would call our decline "courtesy").
That is simply absurd, if you think everyone with a title actually earned it you must have the all-seeing eye of God in your head.
It is true that some people with titles in the U.S. didn't earn them legitimately. I can think of a few liberal arts college "professors" who fall into that category. However, I think it is abundantly clear that the titles they pretend to are intended to be earned, and royal titles are not earned whatsoever (except possibly for the royalty in the nutball Society for Anachronism). The only other exception are those "royals" for whom the title "usurper" also applies (such as Reza Khan). They could be said to have "earned" their title, but that hardly carries legitimacy with it.
Actually, OTHER world leaders are expected to address him as "His Excellency", which they do, just as the President addresses the Queen of England as "Her Majesty" out of simple respect for other people's institutions.
And when the President does, if he has any understanding of the gravity and history of his position, he should do so with the understanding that "Her Majesty" carries less weight of meaning than "Eagle Scout".
Additonally, there is a credible thesis which concludes the "legitimate" heir to the throne of England is actually a middle aged man in Australia. And he voted for a Republic in the last referendum. So much for the so called legitimacy of royalty.
Legally, the U.S. recognizes no hereditary titles whatsoever, there's no law anywhere that says people must be polite and courteous, yet centuries of experience has taught us things go better when we are.
And centuries of experience have also taught us that clinging to archaic and illegitimate concepts like "royalty" have caused bloodier and more pointless wars than anything else. An just because things "go better", as you say, or are easier, doesn't make them right.
Then explain to me why America is nothing at all like what Jefferson talked about?
I already did, earlier in this post. And Jefferson, himself, lived a life quite different than his writings. He was a slaveholder. But that does not make whis words any less legitimate or true. They would hold the same truth and value if they were written by "Anonymous".
Yet you would deny him the individual liberty to use the title of his own ancestors, you're right up there with the Democrats trying to choke off someone's rightful inheritance.
I never said he couldn't use the title or call himself Crown Prince. He has every right to call himself anything he wants. He can call himself "Grand High Poobah" for all I care. But he has no right to ask or tell me, or any other free person, to call him that, any more than I have the right or authority to tell you to call me "Her Royal Majesty, the Dowager Princess of Mars".
I must say the "Amerika Uber Alles" line is a new on me though. (Why we're so unpopular I'll never know...)
You really misunderstand. My attitude is not "Amerika Uber Alles", and the Nazi implication is childish and uncalled for. If you read and understod correctly, you would see that my position is "America Under Nobody". More specifically, "Americans Under Nobody". At best, our elected officials serve us. At worst, the lead us. They never, ever, rule us.
If the rest of the world has a problem with us wanting them to be free as well, then more fool them. Though they probably should be pitied.
Who was suggesting we were? I'm not obliged to treat anyone with respect, yet a little bit can be a big help.
But you mistake respect for obsequious toadying.
I respect Mr. Reza Pahlavi for his diplomatic and literary efforts to bring freedom to Iran. But I cannot also help suspecting a motive behind this is his desire for political position for himself. However, it is true that his ancestor, Reza Khan, did sieze power to bring about democratic reforms, and only took the title of Shah at the insistence of the clerics (they desired a continuance of the monarchy as a crutch for their own failing legitimacy). Reza Khan knew he couldn't succeed in Iran without the support of the muslim clergy, which is basically the same problem we have today (though the clergy today have a lot more power and are a lot more insane). But all that means is that he was a more or less good man and good for Iran. It does not make the title of "King", or "Shah" hold any water here.
> I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves.
That's just funny, "Oh, I is sorry Massah Lizzy, please don't beat be none..."
It's not funny. It's sad. Subject, peasant, slave. It's all the same thing, just a matter of degree. And the worst kind of slave is the one with chains in his head instead of on his arms.
I appreciate your thoughts...
"When I'm speaking of "freedom" here, I mean "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer".
-Yet your respect for free speech does not even include letting someone be called what they wish?
"Reza Khan, was just minister of war under the last Ghajar king before staging a coup and declaring himself Shah in the 20's. And so it is with all "royal" lines if you go far back enough. They are all descended from either a bully who siezed power (regardless of their motives or how they later used that power) or were puppets emplaced by another bully. They are not special. They are not legitimate. They are no different than you or I."
-And how different is this from a revolution that puts a republican government in power by force of arms? By your definition even our government is illegitimate. And I think everyone is special.
"Where those traditions are absolutely antithetical to our traditions, yes. We founded this country to leave those traditions behind us."
-Glad to have that little bit of jingoism verified, and if we left of all of "those traditions" behind us, perhaps you can explain why we still use things like the English language, common law and the idea that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away (hint: Jefferson didn't just make these up on his own)
"we have lost our way on basic human dignity and equality"
I have found that no one shows more bias and prejudice than those who continually harp about the need for "equality" in our country.
"It is true that some people with titles in the U.S. didn't earn them legitimately."
Glad you agree with me.
"And when the President does, if he has any understanding of the gravity and history of his position, he should do so with the understanding that "Her Majesty" carries less weight of meaning than "Eagle Scout".
Oh, so once again you are able to peer into the souls of others to determine their "true" worth; thank you so much for the enlightenment O Divine One.
"Additonally, there is a credible thesis which concludes the "legitimate" heir to the throne of England is actually a middle aged man in Australia. And he voted for a Republic in the last referendum. So much for the so called legitimacy of royalty."
-I've never heard of such a guy, when Elizabeth II was crowned her champion asked if anyone challenged her and none stepped forward. But, if that's your test, more than just one flake, in this country there was about half the population that viewed our own President Bush as illegitimate. So much for the so called legitimacy of democracy huh?
"And centuries of experience have also taught us that clinging to archaic and illegitimate concepts like "royalty" have caused bloodier and more pointless wars than anything else."
Oh God yes, you are so right, I'm sorry. When Germany turned out the Kaiser and had a democracy where they could elect Hitler (who also hated princes) things were so much more peaceful. When Russia killed the Tsar and established the Soviet Union things got so much better, almost as good as when China abolished their monarchy and got Chairman Mao or when Spain ditched King Alfonso for a communist republic. All of these events led to so much peace for the world I can't believe I missed it.
"I never said he couldn't use the title or call himself Crown Prince. He has every right to call himself anything he wants."
-Actually you just said exactly that just above.
"You really misunderstand. My attitude is not "Amerika Uber Alles", and the Nazi implication is childish and uncalled for."
I understand perfectly, you said yourself above that you expect others to respect our ways while we do not have to respect their's, you yourself said that our way was superior to every other in the world, clearly the rest of the world does not agree, so how are we to carry out your vision except with "blood and iron". And, you should read a history book, "Deutschland Uber Alles" was around long before anyone ever heard of a Nazi.
"But you mistake respect for obsequious toadying."
No, you mistake obsequious toadying with using a traditional form of address.
"I respect Mr. Reza Pahlavi for his diplomatic and literary efforts to bring freedom to Iran."
I guess all of your insults against him and his family threw me off, my mistake.
"It's not funny. It's sad. Subject, peasant, slave. It's all the same thing, just a matter of degree. And the worst kind of slave is the one with chains in his head instead of on his arms."
And you're not funny either, you're mentality is downright frightening and just the sort of global ideology that has led to more wars and massacres than all of the kings of history combined.
Again, you just don't Get It. Telling someone they must call you "Prince" is not free speech. You are trying to enforce certain speech upon them.
And how different is this from a revolution that puts a republican government in power by force of arms? By your definition even our government is illegitimate. And I think everyone is special.
The revolution that puts a republican government in power is not force of arms to create a government, but force of arms to end a tyrrany. That is why it is a revolution instead of just another in a long line of wars for succession. If a republican government follows and government overthrow, by definition it holds its power from a mandate from the people. If it holds its power by any other means, it can hardly be called a Free Republic, no can it?
In a war of succession (which many so-called "revolutions" actually were) the new tyrant holds power through the continued threat of force of arms (at best), or through the willing subservience of people who are not trong enough to be free (at worst).
Our own republic was not formed by a force of arms. If you know your history you'll know that it was several years between winning the Revolution, and creating the Constitution.
And you should use "unique" where you use "special".
Glad to have that little bit of jingoism verified, and if we left of all of "those traditions" behind us, perhaps you can explain why we still use things like the English language, common law and the idea that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away
Please do not manke specious arguements. They are not worthy of this forum.
You can deny the illegitimate concept of "the divine right of kings" and yet still retain your language and concept of law. And the traditions of common law and individual rights you so boldly mention came about in England through successive revolutions against the monarchy, starting at Magna Carta, extending through the Protectorate of Cromwell, and the removal of James II from the throne. Here in the U.S. we took those foundations to their logical and ultimate conclusion, the abolition of the concept of royalty.
Jefferson (as well as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and many many others) are the Americans who wrote on why we did this. They came out and said the foundation of common law and individual rights is the inalienable fact of the inherent equality of all mankind (something the english never managed to complete). I quote them because of their immediate applicability. I could also quote Rousseau, or many others, but they are not Americans, and not among the founders of this nation.
I have found that no one shows more bias and prejudice than those who continually harp about the need for "equality" in our country.
And you are trying to apply a generalization of your personal (and unverifiable) experiences to a specific arguement here? That hold no water. Bring evidence to back up your claim.
> It is true that some people with titles in the U.S. didn't earn them legitimately."
Glad you agree with me.
On one single point, which is not relevant to this discussion, but merely a sidenote attempt of yours to distract from the main issue. On everything else, you are wrong. So very very wrong.
> And when the President does, if he has any understanding of the gravity and history of his position, he should do so with the understanding that "Her Majesty" carries less weight of meaning than "Eagle Scout".
Oh, so once again you are able to peer into the souls of others to determine their "true" worth; thank you so much for the enlightenment O Divine One.
Again, instead of coming up with a legitimate arguement, you spew out a hyperbolic straw man, just so you can refute it, coupled with a personal attack. Do they teach forensics in schools anymore?
Who said anything about "peering into someone's soul"? Only you. I merely mentioned the importance of the president remembering the history and meaning of his position. It's part of his job, just like the mechanic needs to know the importance of bleeding my brake lines after repairing my brakes. You do not need to peer into someone's soul to know what their position obliges them to do. And again, you ttry to turn the arguement. My point is that the only measure of a person's worth is the actions they take and the decisions they make, and not the accident of their birth. You do not need to do any "soul peering" for that.
> Additonally, there is a credible thesis which concludes the "legitimate" heir to the throne of England is actually a middle aged man in Australia. And he voted for a Republic in the last referendum. So much for the so called legitimacy of royalty."
I've never heard of such a guy, when Elizabeth II was crowned her champion asked if anyone challenged her and none stepped forward.
This may come as a shock, but there are many things out there that you are unaware of. If you are unaware of this thesis, it's a simple matter for you to look it up instead of just proclaiming (then basing an argument upon upon) your ignorance. More to the point, if the "true heir" voted to abolish the monarchy, he's not about to give a damn about who sits on the throne.
But, if that's your test, more than just one flake, in this country there was about half the population that viewed our own President Bush as illegitimate. So much for the so called legitimacy of democracy huh?
Spoken like a true believer democrat. You simply do not understand the nature of democracy. Have you heard of the word "majority"? The vast majority of democrats who voted for Kerry do not deny the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. They bemoan their loss, but do not deny its legitimacy. They recognize that Bush won, but here's the key tho the whole thing: they can now try again in 2008 to put their own candidate in poewr (which ain't gonna happen if they pick Hillary). In a monarchy, you need to wait for succession or revolution for change, yet you personally, have no vote over the result at all. The true test of a democracy is not the ability to vote for the winner, but the ability to vote for the loser.
Oh God yes, you are so right, I'm sorry. When Germany turned out the Kaiser and had a democracy where they could elect Hitler (who also hated princes) things were so much more peaceful. When Russia killed the Tsar and established the Soviet Union things got so much better, almost as good as when China abolished their monarchy and got Chairman Mao or when Spain ditched King Alfonso for a communist republic. All of these events led to so much peace for the world I can't believe I missed it.
Again with the specious straw men! Do you know any other debating techniques?
First off, Germany under Hitler could hardly be called a democracy, despite elections. The same goes for the Communists, whether in Russia, China, or Spain. In a tyrrany, it matters little whether the tyrant is called "king", "fuhrer", "chairman", or "party secretery". King is just the traditional english language word for tyrant. And no matter what you claim, they can hardly be called nations of free people.
Secondly, none of the cases you mention involve a direct overthrow of a monarchy. They all have an extended period of revolution where a nascent democracy failed to take root and was supplanted by a tyrrany. In each case, the larval democracy failed because it didn't base itself first upon a fundamental basis of the recognition of human equality and individual rights. Democracy is a tool and symptom of freedom, not the other way around.
Thirdly, you only look at recent history and cherry pick the cases you think most favorable to your case. What about the 100 years war fought for the ambitions of monarchs? What about the Wars of the Roses? Before the recent examples you depict, you would be hard pressed to find examples of wars that are not caused by the ambitions of monarchs or other rulers.
> I never said he couldn't use the title or call himself Crown Prince. He has every right to call himself anything he wants.
Actually you just said exactly that just above.
Are you reading before writing? Again you mistake the difference between calling yourself something, insisting others call you something. By "using" the title, I mean he has every right to put it on his business cards, or his letterhead, and introduce himself as such. Just as I have every right to put "Queen of the Outer Marshes" on my own business cards. But he does not have the right to insist that I call him anything other the Mr. Reza Pahlavi.
> You really misunderstand. My attitude is not "Amerika Uber Alles", and the Nazi implication is childish and uncalled for.
I understand perfectly, you said yourself above that you expect others to respect our ways while we do not have to respect their's,
Again, you confuse "respect" with obsequious toadying. I begin to doubt you understand the concepts of freedom and liberty. You seem to think of liberty and freedom as "traditions". They are not. They are a state of being. Freedom means just that: the freedom to not have to call any one your superior. When I refuse to call a man a king, I am exercising my rights as a free person, I am not imposing those rights upon them. When a "monarch" tells me I am supposed to call them "king", they are denying my freedom. I am not telling anyone else they cannot call the man a king, but I am not letting them tell me I have to.
you yourself said that our way was superior to every other in the world,
Which it is. If you don't agree, why are you here?
clearly the rest of the world does not agree,
Not true. A few tyrranies do not constitute "the rest of the world". And tyrranies can hardly be said to be legitimate speakers for their people. What about the many billions of individual people around the world who desire to come to the United States and be free themselves?
so how are we to carry out your vision except with "blood and iron".
Again, you do not understand the nature of freedom. We don't have to do anything. We need only wait. If other people want freedom enough, they will overthrow their governments and gain it for themselves. We can help them, but we can't do it for them.
The monarchies and tyrranies of the world are being swept away. Unfortunately, sometimes they are replaced with different tyrranies, but history has shown that those too collapse into themselves. How can you explain how the rest of the world has over the last two centuries moved ever closer to the ideals of liberty we ourselves try to achieve.
And, you should read a history book, "Deutschland Uber Alles" was around long before anyone ever heard of a Nazi.
Again with the personal attacks. The Nazi reference was intended, and you know it. You were just following Godwins's Law, and not being particularly circumspect about it at that. Your current attempt to worm your way out of it is not helping you.
> But you mistake respect for obsequious toadying.
No, you mistake obsequious toadying with using a traditional form of address.
Again with the Not Getting It. When Mr. Reza Pahlavi claims the title of "Shah", he is using a traditional form of address. When anyone else calls him "Shah", it is obsequious toadying.
> I respect Mr. Reza Pahlavi for his diplomatic and literary efforts to bring freedom to Iran.
I guess all of your insults against him and his family threw me off, my mistake.
Yet again with the Not Getting It. When I refuse to call Mr. Reza Pahlavi "Shah", I an not insulting him any more than I am insulting George Bush when I call him Mr. George Bush. I am merely stating a fact. And mentioning the facts of his family history is also not an insult. Look it up if you want. It is also just a statement of fact. Is it an insult to call Jefferson a slaveholder? It is the plain truth. Is it an insult to call Reza Khan a usurper? It's also just the plain truth. Anyone who sees that as an insult is just demonstrating that their world view is disassociated with reality.
> It's not funny. It's sad. Subject, peasant, slave. It's all the same thing, just a matter of degree. And the worst kind of slave is the one with chains in his head instead of on his arms.
And you're not funny either, you're mentality is downright frightening
Just as the tyrant is frightened by the free person, so is the comfortable slave who maintains the tyrant's position.
and just the sort of global ideology that has led to more wars and massacres than all of the kings of history combined.
Once again with a final Not Getting It. You again seem to think that the cherry picking of recent history is the sum total of all history. You also confuse ideologies. Communism and Fascism can hardly be said to have freedom as their agenda, despite what they, and you, might claim. Just because they replaced a monarchy, does not mean they are automatically fighting for liberty. The communist and fascist revolutions were just anothey form of tyranny replacing an older one. And the only difference is a matter of the title of the new tyrant. Whether you call it a emperor, king, pharoh,lord protector, fuhrer, party secretery, or chairman, it's just another war of succession. And none of the titles or positions are legitimate. The American Revolution was different. We removed a king, and replaced him with nobody.
A monarchy can never be a democracy. Ever.
Only with their heads on a stick.
A minority that was deemed too large by Carter to put down and allow the Shah to continue as ruler of Iran.
Would the "mechanism" of an extended American's middle-finger suffice?
To which two wars are you referring? Presumably the American War for Independence is one. As for "rights and freedoms," what about the rights and freedoms of the American loyalists who were harrassed, tarred & feathered, and driven out of the country because they wished to remain loyal to the Crown? The atrocious treatment of the loyalists by the "Sons of Liberty" showed the revolution to be hypocritical from the very beginning.
I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves.
As my website makes clear, I could fall in all three of your insulting categories of American monarchists, but yes, I am certainly a "true believer." I am also a Tolkien fan (please spell his name correctly), so I guess that makes me doubly irrelevant in your view.
These are the ones who actually want to be subjects, or peasants, or slaves
I am sure that the present-day residents of Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Spain will be most interested to learn that they are akin to slaves. Monarchism has nothing to do with wanting to be a peasant. Rather, it is the recognition of the need to give honor to a person who by inheriting his or her position connects the present with the past and impartially symbolizes the entire nation as no politician could. There is nothing remotely degrading about an appreciation of the splendid pageantry, traditions, and rituals associated with monarchy. These things exist for the benefit of the people, not for the monarch. I am sorry that you cannot appreciate them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.