As I said previously, that's due to a trend started before the revolution. You're misleadingly portraying that improvement was a result of the revolution. That fact is that women have gone backwards since the revolution. And that 81 female presidential candidates were barred because of their gender is a negative development. You're ignoring the timeline - when a reformist was in office the female VP gained office - now a conservative regime is going backwards again. Well, gee. You've been provided statistics that deny your assertions. .01% of the ministries positions are held by women. You can provide alternate statistics to the UN numbers, and we can evaluate the two sources - or you can admit you were wrong. You cannot just say 'those aren't accurate.' Yes, but again you're dealing in half-truths. Women have become more politically active BECAUSE the regimes since the revolution have rolled back women's rights. False. Most of the trend toward women's education and legal protection started under the Shah's legislative agenda. And as I pointed out, it was under the Shah that women gained the right to vote. I figured you'd try to use this lame excuse to mitigate views contrary to your own. Guess what? The quotes provided in my last post about women's education, criticizing the developments in Iran, and whether or not legal discrimination is still in effect are from......Nikki Keddie (Women in Iran since 1979, Social Research, Summer 2000). Who is Nikki Keddie? Why - that would be the same source you quoted from, lol. So I'm afraid your 'blind' argument doesn't work, my friend. Oops. If you want to say the Shah was a dictator, that his secret service killed people etc, I think that can be validated. What you can't do with any semblance of realism is contend the fundamentalist revolution was GOOD for women's rights. That's just laughable.
blazer ben, i provided evidence for all my claims the shah did open fire on protestors during the revolution as well, contrary to what you said, one example would be the black friday incident the only reason he couldnt continue to kill demonstrators as he had done all throughout his tenure is because the armed forces began to desert whatever you may think of iran's government today, this type of brutality does not go on
bottom line the situation for women in iran now is better than it ever was during the shah's time also, the right to assemble and protest peacefully is something that was non-existent during the shah's time also, contestation and participation in elections was non-existent during the shah's time also, elections were non-existent during the shah's time also, reforms were never implemented during the shah's time if things were so good why was there a revolution? if things are so bad right now and given the iranian propensity to rise up and conquer authoritarianism (constitutional revolution, mossadegh era, and iranian revolution), how come there hasnt been another revolution? its kind of pathetic hayes that you're comments come off as defending the shah i've made my case and will be moving on to other topics....peace
Tuck tail and run - buddy. I guess anyone would have a hard time recovering after their own source denies their assertions, lol. I'm not necessarily defending the Shah, I'm pointing out that of all the arguably legitimate points one could make - you chose the one that is the LEAST valid, the one the FARTHEST from the truth, to make your point.
I knew black friday was gonna be mentioned. these people or people who opened fire were palestinians. dressed in iranian troops clothes. one of the high ranking mollahs who fled iran later mentioned this. khomenies first vistor of nonother then yassar arafat. rafsanjani also once said we owe the plastinians our revolution... i wonder that means. it seems here you're the only here blowing the Mollah's trumpet. as i said to you earlier, my family are all veterans. my uncle flew 11 sorties over iraq. my dad is also a war veteran. he flew regulary over iraqi occupied terrotery before in 1986 he had enough of the mollahs constant purging of our airforce. he left. Another absloutly comical point you made, why the iranians havent had another revolution?.. because this bastards are brutal bastards. unlike the shah, there bassiji paramilitary forces are hired killers. they'll kill anyone. the regular army airforce and navy are with the people. but the IRGC are loyal to khamenie. they are professional killers. they've killed many in iran and overseas. Mr ahmadinejad has killed an kurdish oposition leader in austria. this regim consists of killers and thugs. i showed an link, writen by an non-iran with no bias. talk about people being shot in the 2003 uprising. yet you choose to ignore it. typical isl;amic supporter. hear no evil, see no evil.
Dont waste you're time on this fellow. he and his way of thinking is in the minority in iran. i met a revolutionary guard in iran, i thought he was gonna give me trouble for arriving from the unitedstate, but the first thing he said, is tell the american goverment to save us from this b*stard mollahs. the frustration with the current goverment is so bad that people are open to foregin intervention. once upon a time us persians were renounde for our pride. but this arab invaders have torn our country into shreds. i was reading if shah had stayed in power, iran would have been the 5th wealthies nation on the planet by 1986.
POWENED haha.. good job hays. this idiots like floyd are certianly in the minority. he sits in his comfertbal seat from abroad and defends a regim which is using brutality to stay in power.
You make it sound like the Shah was a great regime. My ex-gf was Iranian, according to her the Shah did a lot of positive things as well as negative(brutality). The thing is when you have one extreme it results into another(ayatollah) Pick the better of two evils.
No, Mr creepyfloyd boughtup the argument the shah theory. i merely pointed-out the mollahs are animals who have destroyed an great country. his argument," Gee well atleast there better then shah". thats besides the point. i cant wait for the day iran becomes an indipendent country without a shah or a mollah. people power will pervail. no dictator will last forever,
Definitely wrong on this one. There's a reason why Tehran was once called the paris of the middle east. Women were wearing clothes that rival the non-modesty you find in western countries. Not to mention, that women had greater social mobility at the time. The Shah wasn't a great guy but you could make the very same claim about Iraq. In some parts of Iraq, women's rights have gone down because the local customs are harsher than the mandates of Saddam Hussein. In the case of Iran and Iraq, both were run by oppressive leaders that ruled based on arbitrary and generally non-religious decrees. In many cases, the new religious oriented local governments of Iraq and national government in Iran have reversed many of these. Even if rights for women improved slightly recently, that occured despite the theocracy not because of it. The right doesn't really exist now either. They still have the religious police similar to Saudi Arabia's organization on the promotion of virtue or whatever they label it. They still crackdown on major protests as well. You're right but the elections now aren't exactly entirely legitmate either. The entire reform party was entirely blacklisted from the last set of elections. Not to mention, the Majlis still has minimal power. The Guardian's Council still has total veto power and significant influence over what the Majlis can do. What minimal democracy they have has produced minimal social change. Remember when the reformists stormed to power a few years ago with Khatami as the president. The best reforms they could produce were minimal social changes in small sectors of everyday life. Anything larger would just get vetoed. Fair enough and it was the reason why his regime fell apart. At the time Iran was one of the most modern countries in the region in terms of its educational system. There was a lot of political discussion at the time. Also, unemployment was ridiculous as it is still in many islamic countries today. The Shah was corrupt and did very little to improve the economic situation of the average Iranian. In short every sector of society was pissed. The elite had been exposed to western political philosophy and wanted democratic and social reform. Meanwhile, the poor were being convinced by conservatives that an Islamic revolution was necessary for change. In the end both sides allied to topple the Shah but the conservatives won control of the new government. See above Its not so simple. Sure there is growing popular discontent in Iran. But the interesting thing, is that people are simply becoming apathetic rather than demanding change. You ask the youngest generation of Iranians and many will say that they oppose a lot of things with the current government. But many feel there's no alternative. Some have become disillusioned with the west and even the idea of revolution. You've said it yourself, there has been tons of political upheaval in Iran and many just have had enough.
You think the US is interventionist now? It was probably worse back in the early 1900's or late 1800's. Read a book called Lies My Teacher Told Me and see how evil Woodrow Wilson was (for example). With regard to the US "attacking" countries since WWII, you do realize that, at least two of those countries were in the process of being taken over or invaded by communists governments (which was perceived as a huge threat at the time). With regards to Korea, S. Korea is doing pretty well and N. Korea is aweful. The Korean war was a U.N. operation to prevent the communist North Korean government (with help from China and Russia) from over-running the country. Clearly the South Koreans didn't want that kind of government or they wouldn't be a seperate country today.
He is right. paris was called the bride of the middeast, while iran was called the paris. iran a that point was the most powerfull and richest country in the middseast.
this situation is crazy! inside i hope its just a scare tactic that this information has come out, but the realist in me says this is the real deal. Bush has claimed to be a Christian. On what level that takes i cant be sure. Lots of groups claim Christianity. From where I sit Bush doesnt display any of the compassion and tolerance that is associated with a born again believer in Jesus Christ. While I am not entitled to judge , its my quietly held hope is that Bush seeks the Lord's wisdom and guidance before he goes ahead with something which would likely cause even more tragedy and chaos than even Iraq has. we're talking nukes here, this is nuts! I will always pray for respect wisdom and peaceful resolutions for those in control of the countries involved in potential war situations. Jesus walks with me.... matter of fact he walks with everyone, all of us! Bush... everyone! I
iranian prez just said that his country will have nuclear power! since i'm a rook i can't create a post, someone please start that thread.
Another interesting link Mr Creepyfloyd should read. motre truth bout how cold and evil his idol leaders in the mollahs are.. http://www.gandchi.com/349-LobbyistsEng.htm Under the mollahs people of different faith are either exceuted or prisoned. shah with his fault was alot more tolerent to others faiths or personal beliefs.
The theocracy, and their man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, just gave a loud, "**** you!" to the world community. Regardless of where you fall politically, this should be seen as a frightening development. Equally frightening is who the United States has in charge at this critical juncture. We, the world, are well and truly screwed. Keep D&D Civil.
Iran is calling the world's bluff. Iran is daring the world to do something. Iran figures it holds the better hand. It can retalliate militarily and it can disrupt the flow of oil which would have a very negative effect on western economies. This is turning into quite a game of chicken. Who will blink first?
