Dude, I didn't call you a spy. I was a fan of Khatami, I thought the country was heading down the right path with his leadership and moderation. Then, Ahmedinjad came to power, and I don't like what I am seeing. As for a general comparison between the Shah and the post-revolution government (which to be fair has gone through different leaderships through elections since the revolution), I think Iran could benefit with a more balanced government: not too secular and 'cozy' with the West, and at the same time not a theocracy. I believe the Shah regime and current regime are two extremes of one another. Now you know where I stand
Fair enough. but the elections in the frame work of the islamic dictatorship is flawed. the mullah's pick the candidates and say: choose from the far less smelly crap. .. for instance in the last election, the barred over 2700 candidates. thats pathetic. it's a trick to making the outside world to think there is a democratic system in place. it's far from it. it's flawed. during khatamis regin, there was more execution and religious killigs then in all the previous goverments of the past 27 years. not to mention the most press voilations too. khatami was a powerless puppet.
I understand, it's certainly flawed and is a work in progress. It might not be 'mullahs', but one could also certainly apply a similar criticism to our own democratic system, which is dominated by two political parties mostly beholden to corporate interest, which severely limits our democratic choice (how often have we, as Americans, been forced to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'? Some would call it a 'false choice'). Obviously, I am not saying that our democracy is as 'flawed' as Iran's, just trying to make a point that our democracy is 'flawed' as well. I have to say that the last elections were a major step back in Iranian politics. There is no getting around that. But there is a democratic system in place, it's just flawed. You said it yourself. There is a democratic foundation (which can't be said for much of the Arab world, so Iran is far ahead of most Arab nations in that regard), Iran needs to build on it. You're exaggerating a bit, but I understand what you're saying. However, I wouldn't blame the perceived 'social ills' on Khatami or the lack of democracy in Iran. The U.S. was a full-fledged republican democracy and we had slavery, segregation, lynchings, and race riots; it doesn't mean we didn't have a democracy. We can agree that they have social problems, though we might not agree on what is a 'social ill'. But let's get back to what really matters: Queen Noor is hot!
There might seem to be a democratic system in place, but it will never be realiased until there is a Supreme leader or a gurdian council watches over every move of the politicans of the country. if one were to oust the Supreme leader, it certianly would mean the end of the theocracy. Most Reformist like ganji and others in the prison in iran have all shown soladarity in achiving one goal, oust the Islamic Republic. it's obvious this regime cannot be reformed. Ask khatami himself about the record press voilations and executions in his time. his cabinet and former allies all blasted his spineless tactics in not combating all the press voilations( record numbers) and executing in his goverments regin.
But why do they have to be ousted? Why not, instead, establish a system of government where there are 'checks and balances' between the different branches of government. The Supreme Court is certainly not an elected body, and yet polls show that the vast majority of Americans trust the SC more so than any of the other branches of government. I think the main goal should be to limit the power of the Guardian Council and the religious clerics in government. There should be more balance and more power granted to the Majlis (Parliament) relative to other governmental bodies. I think the system can be reformed, but it won't be easy, Iran has certainly taken a few steps back in that regard over the past few years.
Youre a contradiction machine. with you creepy floys monkier, you claim the islamic is a democracy, but with you're other ID, you claim, it's a mess?. MAKEUP YOU'RE MIND!
It will never happen. the supreme leader control the security forces, revolutionary guard and the army and the bassiji millitas whom mostly consist of foreigners. they will never let go of there powerbase without a civil war. most reformist are looking outside the box now.
It will be tough, but I still think with enough interior pressure on them, they could reform. Anyways, I am more interested in what you meant by this statement, "reformists are looking outside the box now". From talking to many Iranian expats in the US (most of whom hold your views, btw, regarding this regime, which is understandable since most Iranian expats in the West left Iran -- or had families leave Iran -- when the revolution came about), most have told me that they would vehemently oppose any 'military intervention' against Iran to forcibly remove the regime, but they would welcome outside help to the Iranian people to enable them to do just that. Where do you stand on this? Also, where do you stand on the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power because -- again -- most Iranians I have come across are big supporters of the nuclear program and consider it a national honor, regardless of the regime?
Tiger, Foregin Intervention will only destroy iran. military intervention is not a bonafide or a viable option. by outside the box, i mean a refrrundem. a free vote to for the population choose there own destiny. you want the islamic republic or not?.. through disbidence it can be achived. peacefull movement can achive this.
They cant defend this. they rape minors( females) before the execution to purify there sinfull souls. they also want the money of the bullets from the families which had there loved ones face the firing squads.
Thanks for the clarification. The reason I asked is that some of the Iranian expats are -- perhaps unaware -- being used a 'pawns' by the enemies of Iran who are using their statements/testimonials to make the case for military intervention against Iran. In other words, they are -- perhaps unwittingly -- being used to provide a 'cover' for an attack against Iran.
I can assure you, i'm not. i have family members serving in the IRIAF( iranian airforce). why would i wanna see them be put in harms way?
I am not saying you, and I believe you when you say that you're looking out for the best interests of your motherland, but the words of anyone could be used by propagandists to further their own cause. I don't believe it's intentional on their part (most of them at least), but that won't stop certain people with an agenda against Iran from using the very words of Iranian expats against their country, much like what happened to Iraq with Chalabi and his gang...it's in fact what's being done.
Every opposition figure i have seen thus far, they have all opposed a millitary intervention. no self-respecting iranian would want to see his land be invaded by anyone.
I don't know if I would believe that a government would support the idea that a girl that has been raped should be further raped to purify her soul.... I know something like this happened in Pakistan...however it occurred in a town (tribal area) where they basically made up laws (no government intervention) …those people were uneducated and animals… point being: it’s not a reflection of the overall governmental practices. This problem exists in many countries around the world...funny how we just hear about this occurring in 'terrorist' nations....could it be media bias?
No, it started from the top in iran. Khomenie orderd this practise. read his Life bigraphy. so this practise is used and condoned by the very top in the regime. khamenie also condoned such practise.
