(Okay not so quick... but I'd like to see him one day as formal head of state, like the real constitution requires. More important however is the total removal of the Ahmadinejad government and the mullah regime.)
Posted on 06/13/2009 6:07:43 PM PDT by nuconvert
Saturday, June 13th, 2009
Today the world is witnessing the demonstrated anger of millions of Iranians against a regime that denies their most basic rights, including the right to choose leaders who could improve their abysmal condition.
There is no exit from this condition, so long as one man appropriates onto himself the “power of god” and controls the judiciary, the media, the security forces and, through direct and indirect appointees dictates the only candidates claiming to represent an impoverished and disenfranchised people.
Today I stand united with my fellow Iranians and call for the end of the Islamic Republic, or any other prefix in front of the name of my beloved Iran that indicates theocracy or any other form of disregard for democratic and human rights.
I caution the world that offering any incentives or “carrots” to the theocracy under these circumstances is an affront to the people of Iran. This is not a time for short-sighted, self-defeating tactical games. This is the time for the free world to stand true to its principals and support the people of Iran’s quest for democracy and human rights.
If Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi was a freeper, he'd probably be flamed by the "we're not a democracy" crowd on FR who claim that having a "Republic" is always a good thing, and having a "democracy" is always a bad thing and leads to "mob rule" (though they seem to have plenty of mobs in their current Republic)
The Ayatollah transformed Iran from a Kingdom into a Republic. So he's a great guy, right?
We should hope the Iranian constitution gives Imanutjob power to unilaterally appoint all his fellow nutjobs to the Iranian legislature. Then they'd have an even better Republic!
Can't allow dreaded democracy in these dictatorships!
Iran Azadi, Reza
Yep.
May God protect them . . . and us.
The Shah had re-instated the same Parliament that his predecessor, Mossadeq had dissolved, while Mossadeq was well on his way to becoming a communist-leaning dictator.
The form of Parliamentary Monarchy re-established by the return of the Shah, is much like the British model was, in times past.
I say was, since now, the British Monarchy seems as much a figurehead, as anything else...
No one had a snow balls chance in hell to win against Amajinnynut.
Change_for_Iranfrom the looks of it they are waiting to arrest all the students! it’s also explains the vans
half a minute ago from web
goparchitectRT @ProgGrrl “Andrew Sullivan: “The Revolution Will Be Twittered” http://bit.ly/yj0dx “ #IranElection #tcot
less than a minute ago from web
WOTNRT @naseemfaqihi: Zahra Rahnavard, wife of Mousavi: “The results of the elections are completely contrary to reality” #iranelections
Today, the world is quiet a different place. There's nothing at special about being a "Republic" anymore, since the vast majority of nations have set up their states as Republics. There are 135 Republics in the world today. Whether a Republic is "good" or not depends on what type of government they have. In Iran's case, they established an oppressive theocratic Islamic Republic, so the case can be made they were better off under a figurehead monarchy that was friendly to western nations and respected human rights. I would also say France was a far friendly ally to Americans when they were a Kingdom than any time during their status as a "Republic"
Likewise, having a "King" does not bring forth the dreaded fear it did 300-400 years ago, since most of the remaining monarchies in the world have replaced their form of government so the "reigning monarch" is only a figurehead. As you noted, most nations like Iran just followed the British model. In today's world, the number of remaining monarchies where the King has strong control of the nation's affairs can be counted on one hand. I believe the current number of absolute monarchies in the world consists of three nations.
The United States is not an oppressive dictatorship precisely because we have a much stronger democracy than Iran does. Therefore, the freepers who claim democracy is bad and leads to "mob rule" have it backwards. These "conservatives" sound like communist overlords of China the way they scorn about how terrible it is to let the public decide things. The United States is a representative democratic republic, and that's why we enjoy freedoms that the theocratic Islamic republic of Iran doesn't. Their amount of democracy is extremely limited and subject to the Ayatollahs whims.
The freepers who claim that a "Republic" and a "Democracy" are separate, competing forms of government are also talking the B.S. The United States clearly has both. Saying you can't have democracy and keep your Republic is like saying you can't have capitalism and keep your Republic. "Democracy" is a type of government. "Republic" is a type of nation-state. It's perfectly possible for both to co-exist within an organization country.
It's true that DIRECT democracy leads to "tribal rule", but since no modern civilized nation on earth has established "direct democracy" as their form of government, the idea that the U.S. in "danger" of becoming one is ridiculous.
The difference between a democracy and a republic is that a democracy is governance by the people, and a republic is governance by law.
Neither is good nor bad in and of itself, it is how they are implemented.
The French Revolution was a democracy all right and fit the definition, just as one could make the argument that Iran is a republic. A democracy ruled by a mob is no better than a republic ruled by tyrannical laws.
The point I am making is that if you want to apply the labels literally, what you seem to be implying is simply wrong. One can make the argument that the USA is a republic just as Iran is a republic, but there is not question that how they are implemented in each case is completely different, and that is significant.
The United States is both. We are a democratic Republic. We are governed by a constitution and laws, which are enacted by representatives elected by the people.
>> Neither is good nor bad in and of itself, it is how they are implemented. <<
On that point you are correct.
>> A democracy ruled by a mob is no better than a republic ruled by tyrannical laws. <<
True, except the freepers claiming America is in "danger" of becoming a direct democracy run by mob rule have yet to point to any modern civilized country that has adapted pure democracy as their form of government.
>> The point I am making is that if you want to apply the labels literally, what you seem to be implying is simply wrong. <<
I am making the point that freepers who argue that the U.S. is much better off as a "republic" with no democracy are simply wrong, and Iran is proof of that. A Republic by itself is not inherently a good thing.
>> how they are implemented in each case is completely different, and that is significant. <<
I can clearly make the case of Republics who have implemented harmful, oppressive dictatorship governments, where the "democracy is bad" crowd has yet to point to any example around the world of democracy ruining a nation. I agree direct democracy won't work, but disagree that the U.S. is headed in that direction (it will be a cold day in hell before Congress decides they can't pass a stimulus without all 300 million Americans voting on it first, for example). I find it highly unlikely any major nation is about to adapt tribal rule and give "the people" absolute power. I would argue our current republic needs more democracy, NOT less.
(Okay not so quick... but I'd like to see him one day as formal head of state, like the real constitution requires. More important however is the total removal of the Ahmadinejad government and the mullah regime.)
Clue phone for Mr. Palavi.
The “Free” world is not free anymore.
They support the despotic regime in Iran, because the “free” world now consists of despotic leftist regimes.
Totalitarian-Statism is the new “Liberal” paradigm of the 21st Century.
You have him figured out too. Now if only the rest of America can to.
Foreign policy to Obama is JUST A DISTRACTION
bump to the top
I haven't seen anyone make that argument, and if I do, then I will most certainly jump on them. We are a representative democracy.
I don't think we disagree. Right now, we are living in a theocracy...a LIBERAL theocracy. We DO need more democratic involvement. We are cut off from our representatives, which is something the founding fathers were justifiably concerned with.
All the lefties are bringing back the arguments from 2004 putting a Farsi spin on them, but I doubt the little guy lost. Its too bad the Iranians have such a poor spokesman and that the mullahs are stuck in the mud, but George Soros still sucks.
Specifically, they strenuously object to the constitutional amendment allowing individual citizens to elect Senators rather than government bureaucrats. They claim this has lead to the "downfall" of America and all the problems in the U.S. Senate can be blamed on voters choosing the Senators. They claim this is an example of "direct democracy" and mob rule (you can see examples on this very thread), when in fact the U.S. Senate is a representative body --- each Senator represents hundreds of thousands of people -- that is far removed from "directly" allowing citizens to pass any laws. They insist crooked government bureaucrats would appoint far superior Senators and that we can't trust ordinary citizens to make that decision.
They also strenuously object to other reforms allowing more democracy, like direct initiative and recall, claiming this is all part of an evil plot to "destroy the Republic", part of an evil scheme from 1913.
Personally I think those "conservatives" might want to spent a few months living in the "worker's paradise" of the Republic of Cuba, since they detest the idea of representative "democracy" so much.
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.