I am sorry, I completely disagree with you here. How exactly did history "prove" that secular republics are the only path to success? Did you mean as far as the Western experience is concerned? If so, then a case could be made there, although the industrial revolution and global trade were more responsible for Western economic success than secularism was...not to mention that it's arguable just how truly 'secular' those governments were/are. But let's say for sake of argument that you're correct in your assertion that Western 'renaissance' coincided with the Europeans abandoning the Church and moving to more constitutional, secular forms of government. My question is as follows: how does that experience relate to Iran? Is Iran a Western nation? Are you aware that the 'golden age' for Muslims was when Islam ruled the region, not secularism (i.e. the exact polar opposite of the Western experience)? Please further clarify what you meant...
Tiger, you're faveriot poster here. sorry about losing my cool. but i cant believe there are people who still deny the mollahs crimes. i visit iran every 6 to 18 months, and let me tell you, this bastards are so unpopular, they've made shah's regime look like a democracy. thats how unpopular they are.
Secular by where you have elections to choose a president every 4 years. where no suprem leader or shah has the final say. people should allways vote on mandate and other things the parliment suggest. people should allways elect there representitives. no more final say by an individual. khomenie said, if 34 million people say yes, and i dont agree with there vote, my say is final. he basicaly said i can veto a whole nations vote.
No apology necessary, I respect you as well and enjoy reading your posts, and I can tell how passionate you're about this issue. At least you care. Look, I am not disagreeing at all that the Mullahs have committed their share of crimes and are unpopular with a segment of society, I merely sought to clarify what seemed to me like justifying the Shah in order to put down the Mullahs...IMO both regimes were not suitable for the Iranian people and their ambitions. Back when I was an undergrad, I took two senior-level political science/history courses about Iran because I was fascinated -- and still am -- with that country, its culture, its history, and its people. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Iran's potential remains vastly untapped, and it's up to the government to tap that potential and maximize it, which they've so far failed to do (although I won't entirely blame them for it, because there are other outside actors that intend to keep the Iranian people from reaching that potential, they feel threatened by it).
i never said any of that...dont put words in my mouth....you've already been exposed....if the shah was so great as you claim, why was there a revolution?
say what you want about the iranian government, they have elections for every leadership position even the so-called supreme leader is elected
Shah the moron participated in a great travesty against iran. he took part in the 1953 coupe against Dr mossadeghe. dr mossadeghe till the end was loyal to the shah, but the west had fed so much to a spineless and naive shah that Mossadeghe want to assasinate him. hence he took part in a despicable act.
dont forget he also killed tens of thousands of iranians as well like ali shariati he even killed 10,000 people peacefully protesting in one day in june 1963 (15th of Khordad)
I understand, that would be ideal for Iran. My only issue was with your claim that "history proves" it, because it certainly doesn't. The only thing history proves is that there are a multitude of ways that have worked for a multitude of nations at any given point in history. There's no one "good path" that stands out IMO. Each nation will have to find its own...
This really shows how wrong and flawed you're argument is. the Supreme leader is not up for election. even there presidential candidates are selected by the legestive council of security. if you're not loyal to the theocracy, you got no chance in hell of being able to go through. the choices are from poor to bad to crap.
I'm talking from an iranian historical point of view. we've had an constitutional monarchy and it did'nt work. we've had a theocracy and it's failed heavily. i believe a system where church or monarchy has no role in it is the only way to go.
thank you for not calling me names Ayatollah Khomeini was not elected, but every supreme leader after him has to be elected and here's how it works: there is a body called the assembly of experts and anybody can run for the assembly of experts and they are all elected by the people then the assembly of experts elects the supreme leader...Ayatollah Khamenei for example only received 80% of the vote when he became the leader in 1989. The leader is then elected for an 8 year term and every 8 years his term is either renewed or another person is elected in his place....there is also a subcomittee within the assembly of experts dedicated to monitoring the leader's performance and they can vote him out at any time if he is not fulfilling his duties
I dont care if the members of this so called " assembley of experts'" are selected by the people, they have no right to choose a person who has the final say in every internal and external matter. that should be people vote. besides all that, in a democratic system there should'nt be a supreme leader or a shah. there should a a parliment who serves the people not the supreme leader. ... hence the dictatorship. BTW, noone has the balls to vote khamenie out, simply because he along with rafsanjani and the IRGC will organiaze a military coupe deta.
Who? the people.. were talking about the " assembley of experts" here. they dont have the balls to vote against khamenie. also the l;ast elections was a mass fraud. agknowliged by everyone. the reformers even admited. the IRGC and the bassiji core voted heavily by using fake passports. meaning they voted upto 3 times each.despite all that, only about 10 million of the 42 million people who could bvote, actually did. it was a mass boycott by the masses. people had enough of this fake and rigged elections.
lets take a look at balzer ben's own words: first he says the "supreme leader" is not elected Then he says they dont have the "balls" to vote Ayatollah Khamenei, the so called "supreme leader," out priceless!
To clear up the ridiculous election system of Iran.. Virtually every official is indirectly elected. It just happens that the system is rigged on the candidacy side. While there are elections for practically elected, the types of candidates for each position generally becomes so overly restricted that it just reaffirms the status quo. In the case of Khamenei, he is elected by the "Assembly of Experts" who are elected by the general public. The trick is that in order to run for a position on the Assembly of Experts, you must be an "expert" in Islamic law. Well, the the guardian's council who is half appointed by the Supreme Leader (the other half is appointed by the head of the supreme court who is appointed by the supreme leader) basically have the same people run every 8 years so it's always the same people electing Khomenei over and over again. In other Khomenei's guardian council indirectly controls the body that elects him. The whole system is circular in order to present the image of democracy while reaffirming existing leadership.
you failed to mention a couple of things iran is an islamic republic and the laws are based on 12er Shi'i Islam (Ja'afari School of law and Usuli School of thought), thus, it only makes sense that somebody has to be well versed in the Sharia (Islamic law) to make an effective political figure....again, anybody including women can run for the assembly of experts, you just have to be able to pass an average test on Islamic law also, the nominations of half the members of the guardian council are approved or rejected by the parliament, which is elected by the people not to mention, the neutral arbitration body, the expediency council, that settles differences and disputes that may arise in the end, its the votes of the iranian people that count
