Monarchy or Republic?

News, Commentaries & Political Discussions on Iran

Moderators: Club Operations, Web Operations, Political Operations

28 Mordad, Then and Now!

Postby Ahreeman X » Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:00 pm

28 Mordad, Then and Now!

Camran Mirza & All:

Now, these questions are very interesting & I would like to have a shot to respond to them. Before I begin, I would like to do an intro:

About Camran Mirza:

"I love this man (Alahazrat), the same as I love my father."
(Camran Mirza)

My digital memory allows me to remember above statement by Camran Mirza. This statement has been made, years ago.

About myself:

Everyone knows that I am one of the biggest "Logical Critics" of Mosadeq ol Saltaneh. Everyone also knows that I despise Jebhe Meli Iran, for its history of Opportunism, Reformism & Shaky deals during the Imperial Regime & the Islamic regime.

Therefore, Camran & I, are far from being Mosadeqists or Jebhei; however, we are both pro logic & as much as possible, we are trying to unbiasly review the history.

Now on to the questions we go,

"Q. Would Iran benefit more or less, if Dr. Mosadegh was not replaced by the Shah through the western support namely CIA in 1953 after he was abducted and had fled the country? "


Then

If you would have asked me this question before 1979 (Imperial Iran Era) or if the Imperial Iran was still in power today, then I would have answered you:

Iran would have ended up in a disaster, if Mosadeq had stayed in power.
Why you ask?
Because, Mosadeq & Jebhe Meli unlike Tudeh Communist Party, did not have the massive backings of the masses behind them. Once Mosadeq would have gained control, then Tudeh Party would have been easily removed the control from his hands & Iran would have become @ best a Marxist state & @ worst, the 16th republic of Soviet Union.

That is why, I am one of the few people who has large enough balls to openly defend & support the 28 Mordad, 1953 coup.

Now

If you ask me this question today (2005), when we are in the 27th year of the Islamic occupation of our land, then my answer will be different:

If Mosadeq had stayed in power, Iran would have been better off today!
Why you ask?
Because there would have been two scenarios:

a) Best Scenario:
Mosadeq would end Monarchy, establish a democratic republic. Due process, free elections, participations of all political parties in the political process & political education of the masses would occur. Iran would have been a democratic country; therefore, the political oppression of Pahlavis would have never continued. Without the Pahlavi police state & political suffocation, the Islamic Revolution would have never occurred. Today's Iran would have been a Democratic Republic, far more sophisticated than the Islamic Shiite Hole that it is!

b) Worst Scenario:
Mosadeq would lose control, Tudehists would gain control. Iran would become "People's Democratic Republic of Iran". Dr. Yazdi, would become Chairman of the ruling party, Communist Tudeh Party of Iran. Tabari, Eskandari, Kianuri & rest of the comrades would make up the fabrication of the Central Committee. Democracy, Jebhe Meli & Monarchy would be banned. Iran would become a full-blown Marxist nation. Even in this scenario, Marxism due to its scientific, secular, revolutionary & progressive nature, would have evolved Iranian brains & educate them to become secular people. Same as Eastern Europe, eventually Marxism would have been collapsed in Iran & democracy would have been prevailed; however, after decades of secular education & teachings of evolutionist science, it was highly unlikely for Iran to fall in Islam's hands, due to an Islamic Revolution! So today's Iran would once again, become a Democratic Republic.

So either way you look @ it, Worst or Best Scenario, if the 28 Mordad, 1953 coup would have not occurred, then today, instead of an Islamic contagion, we would have had a Democratic Republic, most likely as progressive as Germany or Japan!

So on 1978, in Imperial Iran, I would have told you that 28 Mordad saved Iran from a Marxist Revolution. But today in 2005, after 27 years of Islam, Shiiting all over Iran, I can strongly declare that one way or another, @ best or worst scenario, we would be better off if Mosadeq was succeeded & Monarchy would have ended on 1953.

Either way, Jebhei or Tudehi controlled Iran on 1953, would have resulted in a progressive Democratic Republic of Iran in 2005, rather than an Islamic Shiite Hole of today!

I hate to admit it & I hate to sound like I am in agreement with Jebheists or Tudehists, anywhere in history; however, as a historian, I must remain unbiased & judge/study the history as a science.

So today on 2005, even as a solid defender of the 28 Mordad's 1953 Coup, I hate to admit it, but I am convinced that we would have been better off in hands of Jebhe or Tudeh, back then, than in hands of Islam today! This is Death & nothing is worst than Death!

But then again, if it was up to me, I would go back in history to 1925 & support Reza Khan to never give in to Monarchists & be forced to become a Shah! I would have supported Reza Khan to become the first president of Iran, continue the path of Attaturk in Turkey & establish a Secular Republic. If Reza Khan was permited to do as he pleased, then Monarchy would have been ended on 1925, Islam would have never taken control on 1979, & Iran would have been an advanced Secular Democratic Republic today. In a way, Reza Khan committed a political suicide for himself & for Iran by giving in to Monarchists on 1925 & accepting to become Shah & starting the Pahlavi Dynasty!

Indeed I would have rathered to see Reza Khan as the 1st president of Iran than Mosadeq!

"Q. What do you think, if Iran had continued it's republic until today, without the Shah?"


Today's Iran would have been a 2nd world, global power, rather than a 3rd world Shiite Hole! Iran would most likely be as advanced as Western European powers.

"Q. Was it not to the best of interest for the West to keep Iran under Monarchy instead of Republic? "


Yes indeed. The west had to block Communism by all means possible. An obedient Imperial Iran would have been a great servant for USA & UK. But then again, as soon as Alahazrat got a large head & started to challenge the West to a duel, CIA & MI6 kicked him out of power! Alahazrat was a bad poker player! He bluffed, without having any wild cards (backing of his own people)! So he lost the game to the Masters!

Ahreeman shall now exit the building.

Well thank you, thank you, Thank you very much (with a lip twitch, Elvis Style)!

AX
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Liberator » Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:09 pm

Dear Dr X/prologicam,

This is just to acknowledge i've read your posts and will respond to them as soon as possible.




Ba Sepaas
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Liberator » Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:43 pm

Dr-jaan :aristocrat:

Many questions have arisen on this topic and I'll try to respond to them one by one...

*************************************************************





Every human institution, after all, has its good and bad sides. As long as this world is inhabited by men and not angels, crimes and mistakes will continue to occur...
By Otto von Habsburg




Lets start shall we...

Don't you tell the Marxists to get out of States & go live in a Marxist nation? Don't you tell them have a taste of their own medicine? Don't you tell them do as they preach? Well I am telling the Monarchists who live in US, the same thing! What is so simplistic about it? Are we having double standards?!


Again lets not make it too simple. There might be Marxists that argue this and that country would be better under Marxist rule but not so in the U.S.

The same goes with Monarchists. And when it comes to Iranian Monarchists (most of them) none are advocating for the U.S. to become a monarchy.

One has to take into account that each and every country is unique in aspects such as culture, history, economy, politics, language and so on and that one cannot force one type of system on all the countries of this world unless you first create a GLOBAL RACE who are identical in the above aspects!
I prefer having unique diverse races rather than a "global race".



People have different taste! So what? They can vacation in different places but they can live in their Utopian Ideal Land, no?


Again. Iranian Monarchists want a Monarchy for their country because they deem it the most beneficial system of government for their nation, and they lived a normal comfortable life under Shahanshah Aryamehr's time until the Islamists with western backing decided to end this.
Again I stress, we cannot take for granted that since Iranian Monarchists advocate the restoration of the Iranian Monarchy they have to go and live in a Monarchy. With the fall of the Islamic Republic and the resotration of the Iranian Monarchy they/we will all go back. Trust me :B


Do, live & act as you preach. I mean it literaly & actualy! Thats how I live, don't you?


I do. I advocate for the restoration of the Iranian Monarchy because I deem it to be the best form of system of governance for Iran.



Before I begin, I would like to state here that I do not want to change anyone's ideology, yet I am only arguing for argument's sake.


Of course Dr-Jaan, and I won't change my stance unless there is substancial evidence that would prove my stance would be inferior to another. And when the evidence prooves that the other side is AS GOOD AS the other, in that situation I would also not change my stance because there is simply no point.



You & Monarchists view people as a unit which are "Ruled" by a "System"


Actually that is not what a Constitutional Monarchy is. A Constitutional Monarchy is one in which the people, as in the U.S., elect their representatives to Parliament and in which the majority parties leader becomes Prime Minister. The policies of the state will reflect the majority parties/ or the will of the majority of the people in that particular state.
I would change your choice of wording from "ruling" to "serving" which would be more truthful. If we use words like "ruling over the people" we would be talking about a dictatorial republic or an absolute monarchy.

Therefore I cannot accept the "types" you've listed, because the very first thing you write in your types (when referring to monarchy) is:

Government of a Monarch


How can it be "the government of a monarch" when the monarch is a non-partisian/independent figurehead who stands above parties and is a symbol of unity. How can the Monarch be a symbol of unity if he takes part in party politics which only leads to dividing people rather than bringing them together, it's just not possible for a monarch to engage in such political activities.


Continuing...

When refering to Monarchy you state:

not an up-to-dated view of the world; therefore, it is not logical nor it fits today's world


Ouch! Why do you have to be so harsh Dr-jaan :(
Actually, mosts modern monarchies of the world today, such as Sweden, UK, Netherlands etc are successful due to their ability to change with times and therfore keep their consolidate their support - hence they are modern monarchies who are able to serve as bridges to that once glorious past! And if we are to talk about up-to-date systems of governments could we not find this other institution (the republic) in ancient Greece, Rome, and Carthage? :-k
Both the Monarchy and the Republic have been with us for a long time.


Cotninuing...

When referring to the Republic you chose to say:

Government of the people


So people do not choose their preferred candidate in Constitutional Monarchies? I cannot vote for those who I feel will best represent me? No it is not so and I can vote for those who I feel best represent me in a Constitutional Monarchy your quote above should in my belief have been applied to the one describing Constitutional Monarchy instead of "Government of a Monarch" which you choose and which I claim to be wrong.



When talking of the Republic you state:

I decide the type of the system, who runs the system, who will govern & their power limits.


President Bush didn't recieve congressional approval to go to war with Iraq and hence he put the Constituion of the U.S. under his feet and did not mind what the people (or peoples' representatives in Congress) felt about this matter. If you were anti-war how were you able to decide the power limits of your President?

On another note...I was pro-war but now that i see the SHIITE state that Iraq is in with SHIITE in power it makes one think! However, then on the other side I think of our Kurdish brethren/sisters that were massacred by Saddam...i'ts difficult to say which would have been better. These SHIITES man!!! What are your thoughts on the future of Iraq Doc?


Continuing...


When speaking of Monarchy you say:

Even in the most sophisticated present forms of Monarchy, one person (The Monarch) rules over the people, yet by the power of the Parliament/Cabinet.


I refer you to my earlier statement about the Monarch being a non-partisan/independent figure who stand above party politics and is a symbol of unity.



Even in Sweden, the King of Sweden rules over you & everyone else.


In Sweden our monarch does not rule over us. When you use the word "RULES" I think of a Ali Gedha/ANtarinejad/Khalkhali hitting people on top of their heads with a chomaaqh! :caveman: (minus the nice smile on his face!) In Sweden the Monarch reigns, he's an extraordinary symbol of unity for the country that all groups respect. He does not make laws for the people to abide by!


When talking of the Monarch you state:

you have no power over him because you cannot "elect" him.


This is also deceiving in my opinion. It is possible to replace an obviously incapable successor to the throne by a more suitable one by the help of a judicial tribunal (or call it whatever) who could intervene to change the succession to the throne. Also I believe that any monarch can be deposed through a referendum or if the people do not desire the system the whole system can be changed as well. So this notion of having no power is wrong in my opinion.

(BTW Does the U.S. Constitution allow for a referendum on the system of governance of the country in case Americans one day desire to adopt the system of Monarchy?)


You say:

You are being ruled by one person. In 21st century, this is simply not logical


Again this a common perception that is completely wrong, it also makes you think of that "chomaaqdar" again which is anything but the representative picture of a Constitutional Monarchy like that of say Sweden! Just imagine King Carl XVI Gustaf with a "chomaagh" hitting people on top of their heads "ruling"!!! LOL! :D If that was the case we would have to opt for Crown Princess Victoria to take over her fathers role!

How can you say no a beautiful modern family like this:

Image
:kissey:


It's just not possible... [-(

hehehe...alright moving along :raft:



Monarchs of 21st century do not have full or even limited powers. They are figureheads of states. They serve no role, no purpose & no use, except waste of the national budget on their salaries & luxurious lifestyles. They unite no one, except those Tabloid Reader simpletons & Teenagers who follow the Royal Families lifestyles & gossip on which king or prince done what & who banged who!


The powers of the monarch are determined by the parliament (the people). The monarch is the symbol of the nation, symbols of the glorious past. The monarch is a professional, an expert in his work since he has been raised to for it and knows what he/she is doing.

In regards to the lavish living. Lets compare Reza Shah's "lavish lifestyle" with that of other contemporary Monarch's. I'm sure you have seen Reza Shah's sleeping quarters! The man slept on the floor in a very simple spartan room. He was a great man of his time. Shahanshah Aryamehr's palace would not even qualify to be called a palace if you went to other Monarchies in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East! In Sweden you might see the King of Sweden driving next to you on the highway! I heard that even Shahanshah Aryamehr used to drive around Tehran on his own before the 2nd Arabo-Muslim invasion! It is important for today's monarch's to be "down2earth" and be able to spend time amongst their people.

Charity work is a major role that Monarch's have. Their appearance at the opening of nonprofit organizations helps these organizations tremendously.

In our own country Shahbanou Farah established the Museum of Fine Arts in Tehran were she was able to collect a considerable amount of priceless paintings and modern art.

Monarchs typically serve as "Super Hosts" accepting ambassadorial credentials at colorful ceremonies and orchestrating state dinners. Many supporters of Monarchy say that "combining the ceremonial job of head of state with the political post of chief executive, as the United States does, is impractical." The reason being that it's impractical running a country and then as if that's not enough play hosts in the evening!

Gary Toffoli, co-publisher of Monarchy Canada Magazine says:
"The head of state of society should be completely nonpartisan,"
"In the United States, when there's a Republican president, all my Democratic friends hate him. When there's a Democratic president, all my Republican friends hate him. They don't really think of the president as the symbol of the whole country."

This is an excellent point that Mr Toffoli raises, and the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. serve as a very good example on how divisive the role of the President of the U.S.A is...

The monarch is NOT tied to any tied to any political party. He does not owe his position to a select number of voters or the support of powerful interests. A president, on the other hand, is always indebted to someone.

As is argued by other monarchists "elections are expensive and difficult to fight. The power of money and the great mass organizations always makes itself felt. Without their help, it is almost impossible to become the head of State of a republic. Such support is not, however, given for nothing. The head of State remains dependent on those who helped him into the saddle. It follows that the president is mostly not the president of the whole people, but only of those groups that helped him to attain office. In this way, political parties or groups of economic interests can take over the highest command positions of the State, which then no longer belongs to the whole people, but, temporarily or permanently, becomes the privileged domain of one or another group of citizens. The danger exists therefore that a republic will cease to be the guardian of the rights of all its citizens."

Also..

Symbolizing an entire nation is one reason monarchs flourish in countries split by ethnicity. Again I bring Spain to your attention because it's an excellent example on how King Juan Carlos has been able to unite all the different ethnicities that exist in Spain.

Monarchy works in Spain "because we are a very divided country," said Dr. Javier Tusell, history professor at the Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia in Madrid. King Juan Carlos stresses respect for regional differences, so that "now you feel Spanish," Dr. Tusell said, but you can also feel like a Basque or Catalan.


Lets look at the Belgium another country ethnically and linguistically diverse. When King Albert succeeded his brother, King Baudouin, he took the oath of office in French, German and Dutch. Imagine the future Monarchs of Iran taking that oath in Persian, Kurdish, Azari....wouldn't that be BRILLIANT! Would that not be such a strong gesture of national unity/solidarity! Wouldn't the different peoples' of Iran feel more united? A monarch brings together different ethnicities of a nation into a non-ethnically-based Iranian nationality. That day I would stand proud next to my national flag. :iranian: (btw why have you deleted the Shir o Khorshid!) :D

I don't think we need to dwelve much into the other notion by "Republicans" that Monarchy is incompatible with democracy! I find this quite ridiculous to be frank. In this day and age in which we have monarchies that are amongst the most, progressive and highly developed democracies in the world!
But let us not forget that BOTH systems can be taken advantage of. On the Republican side we have dictatorial republics such as Saddam Hussein, Bashar Al Assad, and Kim Jung Il who come to my mind and retrospectively for monarchies the arab monarchies come to my mind, especially Saudi Arabia.


Almost done....


The greatest symbol of unity for masses of Iran will not be a Shah, yet it will be an actual, factual & realistic symbol of unity which is called Federalism! Federal rights for "All" will guarantee unity amongst all ethnic groups of Iran.



Ah..Federalism is the word of the day. Would federalism do the opposite of what a monarchy tries to do which is to unite the people? Does federalism not seperate people into their own seperate "worlds" and there is only minimal contact with the "Central Government"? In Germany for example the "southerners" think of the "northerners" as "lazy", especially people from Bavaria tend to have this view. How does federalism bring the country together, how does it create unity, how does it benefit the country?
I must say that i'm not too familiar with "federalism"...can a Monarchy have federalism? What do you say Doc? Can you shed some light on this issue from a non-partisan/independent perpective? :Candle:


Doc :aristocrat: ,
It's been a pleasure talking to you. Happy Thanksgiving.


Best Regards,
Immortal Guard without a squadron
:immortalg:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Ahreeman X » Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:41 pm

Shiite Aspects of Monarchy in Iran!

OK, back to the subject! For a short while, lets set aside the global & political aspects of monarchy, yet concentrate on the Shiite aspects of it in Iran! Can we?!

El Liberatore de Persiano:

I wanted to post this under the original post
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=784

But, one thing lead to another & after writing my response, I have noticed that my response has become more about Monarchy, Shiite, Tradition of Shiite Monarchy & episodes of 1979; therefore, I saw it fit to post it under "Monarchy vs Republic" thread!

Your post was overall a good piece. Seems like you have an eye to search the news for good pieces. Now allow me to make a few comments:


Ayatollah Tabatai:
"It is not the people whose votes we should respect - but only the religious people. Ours was not just any sort of revolution - it was an Islamic revolution."


I Love an honest Mullah! I only have wished for Muslim to comprehend this fact:

In Islamic Doctrine, everything is a part of Religion. There is no separation of Mosque & Government. It has been this way since Mohammed's era until today. One cannot believe in Islam & then claim that he/she believes in Separation of Mosque & Government! In Islam, Government is part of the Mosque. In Islam, everything including Judiciary, Parliament, Cabinet, Everyday lifestyle, dress code & every other element of the society are parts of the Mosque.

In a true Islamic society such as:

Mohammed's Caliphate
Islamic Empire during 4 Caliphates of Rashedin
Taliban Afghanistan
Islamic Republic of Iran
etc.

All aspects of life are a part of Religion. Islam rules above & over everything. As I have said one thousand times:

"Islam is not just another religion, yet it is a dangerous political ideology."

In an Islamic society, what counts are Muslim's vote. In an Islamic society, what rules, is Allah. In IRI, we have a voting system, but one must be a Muslim, believe in IRI & Imam first, to even have the privilege to vote in elections!

But of course our Iranian Muslim live in LaLa Land! They believe they can Modernize Islam & up-to-date it to a sophisticated modern system to govern a "Separation of Church & State" type of society! I got news for our Muslim:

If you want to modernize Islam, then you have to burn 95% of Quran which is practically garbage! You will have 5% left which is indeed stolen from other religious books! So what part of it would you like to modernize?

Any Muslim who is still preaching about "Different Interpretations of Islam" or "Modern Islam" or etc., are indeed having no clue about Islam. I bet they have never ever even read the "Complete" Quran & Hadith! They are either saying so, due to political reasons or political opportunism, or they are saying so due to pure ignorance!

When Reza Pahlavi or Maryam Rajavi says:
"What is wrong with us, practicing Islam in private of our own home, separated from government"?

I will tell them:
This is a "Void"! This is simply not possible! Because there is no Separation of Church & State in Islam!

They are either saying such shenanigans due to "political opportunism" or "Ignorance" or both!

But when someone, a political activist, a sincere Freedom Fighter, such as IIRF Representative says:
"What is wrong with us, practicing Islam in private of our own home, separated from government"?

I know for a fact that he or likes of him are suffering from "Historical & Religious Ignorance"!
If these friends truly study Islam, they would never say such cockamamie statements!

Islam cannot be separated from politics.

Actually friends like IIRF Representative & many other Muslim of opposition, are not "True Muslim" because they have certainly "No Clue" of what they are talking about! True Muslim are Hizbollah.

I suggest, they go & read Quran + Hadith.

Even in Shiite Monarchy of Iran, starting from Safavid Empire to the end of Pahlavi Shiite Monarchy, the Shiite Islam was clearly ruling over Iran! One nation under Allah with Shiite as official religion of the land!

Writer:
"While my interpreter was making the call to Khalkhali's house, I was told another story about him. An 11-year-old girl had been picked up by the komiteh walking in the street in Qom at 11pm at night, arrested and taken to a prison.

Some people were due to be executed in the prison the following morning, and the girl had somehow got mixed up with these condemned prisoners. She was taken out and executed as well.

Later, it was realized that a mistake had been made, and the guards went to Khalkhali to say "What shall we do? We have made a mistake."

Khalkhali said: "No - she was (sexually) corrupt - put her down as corrupt." And he signed the paper.

A little later the body was washed and examined by the prison doctor. She was found to be virgo intacta. My interpreter returned to say that Khalkhali's wife had said that the Ayatollah was very sick, too ill to"


Islam has no respect for Human Life & Individuality.

Reformist:
"What you have to realize is that many of the clergy themselves do not like the system at all. Only a tiny minority of them are part of it. Many of the rest deeply resent the ruling clique. Also, they are aware of their unpopularity, they are deeply troubled that it will bring Islam itself into contempt. They also cannot help realizing that their own livelihoods are at stake."


Wouldn't that be great?
Islamic Republic of Iran is the greatest enemy of Islam! IRI will eventually cause the downfall of Islam in Iran! IRI is our greatest Alliance! I love Mullahs!

Reformist:
"The clergy are and will always remain an important part of society, and it is reasonable to guess that if they can devise an intelligent withdrawal strategy, there could just be a democratic Iran, governed in accordance with Islam, but not ruled by the mullahs."


This is why Reformists live in LaLa Land! They believe in a Democratic Islamic Nation! This is Contradiction in Contradiction!

Reformist:
"In all this, Iran is well ahead of the Arab world."


Wow, what achievement! I have wetted myself!
If Islamic Revolution would've never occurred, then Iran should've been in the 2nd world level (Germany, Japan)!

Writer:
"Oddly enough, this was one of the late Shah's preoccupations - it helped get him into trouble when he attempted to replace the Islamic calendar with an ''imperial'' one."


Not @ all! The problem was:

Shah had the "will" to make a "Change", going back to his Persian roots. Ex: Imperial Calendar.
But
Shah did not have the "free mind" to back it up, because he was a Shiite-Head himself!
Also
Shah did not have the "balls" to back it up, because he could easily avoid the Islamic Revolution @ its birth, by slaughtering only 10,000 Muslim protestors in streets of Iran, before riots became nation-wide!
Shah could stay in Iran, stand his ground, & destroy the Muslim Rebellion, before it turned to a full-blown "Islamic Revolution" & then IRI. Shah was awaiting Carter's orders, rather than making a decision on his own!

Shah played a bluff in the poker game with the west, a power trip game, an independent Great Iran game. Shah played a poker game with the west & he lost his kingdom in this game!

He had the will to create a Great Independent Iran, but he never had the means (balls) to back up his words & actions!

But of course, there are & there will always be excuses excuses excuses & more excuses, Persian Style!
Never ending Excuses by Monarchists:

Liberator:
Ohhhhhhhhh Shah had cancer, Shah was sick, Shah could not make decisions, Shah was dying, Shah O poor Shah O poor Shah .................. Boo hoo Barahoot.............. Oho oho oho..........

Admzad:
Well excuse meeeeeeeee! Well excuse Shah, because he was not a murderer to mass murder people! When people said they didn't want him, why stay?

Folks:
I got a question from Monarchists?
You make it sound like this is all about Shah!
How about Iran & Iranians?
Shah fled Iran in 2 occasions on 1953 & 1979!
Was he also sick on 1953?
No, face it, he was weak!
Actually Monarchy, Monarchists & Monarchs (by majority) are weak; furthermore, cowards!

Head of a Government, has a duty to his nation!
Stay your ground & bloody fight for Iran!

I would've not only killed 10,000 Muslim, yet a Million Muslim to save Iran! But then again, I was only a piss ant 16 year old! But ironically, you know what happened?

The 15 & 16 year olds were street rumbling & fighting in Tehran (like we did), but Imperial Generals, Imperial Statesmen & Shah & Bloody Pahlavis fled & abandoned the ship! We kept it up until we got forced out & kicked out of Iran by our parents & Muslim!

That is the true story of what happened on 1979.

I am sick & tired of excuses!

Writer:
"Hafez is, I supposed, the most famous Persian lyric poet. I said that I had a volume of Hafez in English, which I often read. Another asked: "What do you think of his imagery of love and wine?"

I said that - subject to his own greater knowledge - it seemed to me that this might be symbolic or mystical, having something to do with the love of God, with wine as some sort of image of religious inspiration.

He nodded in vigorous agreement - "That is how I read him myself. Have you anything like that in English?""


I respect Iranian classical poets but I am sorry to burst your bubbles! Iranian classical poets were a bunch of lazy bums, sitting around drunk, opiumed up, with sperm running dicks, due to too much banging, writing poems of love, romance, god, mysticism, sufism, Moula Ali, Poon Tang, & other Bang O Salavat episodes! These poets never worked a day in their lives (same as RP, yet RP is not a poet)! They were writing poems for various Courthouses of different Dynasties & different Shahs! Every Shah had a few poets in his Darbar! These poets were writing poetry to make money & become famous! They were all lard asses with no real jobs! They were writing Mystic cockamamie Bologna put in simplistic notions such as love & wine!

Iranian Classical Poets were homegrown leeches of Monarchies!

I mean, more power to Saa'di. Hafiz, Moulana, Shams, bla bla bla............ but honestly, weren't they all Full O Shiite?!

Poets & Poetry should have a purpose! What was their purpose?
Writing Sweet Lovely Bang O Salavat Episodes is not exactly a purpose! Is it?
Prasing some Shah is not exactly a purpose, is it?

Erfan, Sufism, Mysticism & other Bang O Salavat episodes are an Iranian Tradition for bums!

Liberator Emphasizing on Writer's Quote:
"The son of Pahlavi - very good!" He was talking of the soi-disant Crown Prince, Reza Pahlavi, heir of the late Shah, Mohammed Pahlavi.

Does this represent Iranian opinion?"


Eheeeeem, Ohoooom, Ahoooooom, clearing my throat:

Well Nope!

Sorry to burst your bubbles but RP cannot gather a few thousand people in a Hall to protest, set aside protests of Millions O people in streets of Tehran! RP is not the man for the job! He never been! RP is Mr. Mom! He is a great baby sitter & a chef, but a states man?! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm........!

But then again:

"Arezu bar javanan eyb nist!"

Now about your PM request on articles about Mosadeq & Jebhe Meli Leaders. Those articles are a pictorial mini series of documents + Dialogues & I cannot just publish them in the club, so you have to wait till I publish them in the new site. Patient is a virtue!

The bottom line:

"Any Thinking Iranian, @ some point of his life, has to decide between Islam or Iran? You can't have both!"

"No Iranian Muslim can save Iran from disaster, because first, they have to save themselves from Superstition, Arab Worship & Allahic Virus, & only then save their nation from disaster! After all, the disaster is Islam!"

That's why, with all due respect, both Reza Pahlavi & Maryam Rajavi, need to solve their own Islamic Problems first, & only then suggest remedies for The Iranian Disease!

Best to All

sign,

Someone stuck between Shiite and Bull Shiite

* * * * * *
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Liberator » Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:04 am

Dear Dr-X,

Some parts of your post were relevant under this thread others weren't.

In brief the issue of Islam and Monarchy is one that has existed since the arab invasion up until the end of the Pahlavi Dynasty. What we could see though, from the day the arab religion of Islam began influencing the Iranian monarchy up until 1979, is that we can "evolve and progress". I'm sure Islam had a much greater role under the Safavid Dynasty than the role it played under the Pahlavi Dynasty. We were slowly moving in the right direction. From hardcore muslim laws that women are sex-tools and home wives worth half a man to them being respected equals capable of taking positions of power under the Pahlavi Dynasty.

As I've stated before: I support a secular democratic Iran which rules out a "shiite monarchy". Once Iran is freed from the dictatorship of the Islamic Republic, let those who chose to label themselves "muslims" (but who in practice are not) fool themselves by practicing "their" beliefs inside their homes; education in time will open the eyes of these ignorant or brainwashed ones. As for the true muslims like Hassan Abbasi, Ali Geda i'm sure all of us have plans on what to do with them.



Ba Sepaas
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Liberatoriano_Nepalese Conspiracy!

Postby Ahreeman X » Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:22 pm

Liberatoriano_Nepalese Conspiracy!

Information Warrant Officer Liberator :vik: :

There is a conspiracy going on here! :fingering:
Conspiracy in Highest Offices of IPC! :paranoid:

How come the revolution of global masses, no matter how irrelevant & small of a nation, from Belarus to Kyrghyzistan has been covered here:

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=845

and in Both Reportage & photographic form,
Yet not a single word or sound about Nepal?!
Hmmmmmmmmmmm?!
Why is that Thor?! :asgard: :question:

:-k @ 1st, I thought, maybe a Hippie Heaven for mountain climbing, Himalaya loving tourists, where The Beatles used to take "Acid Trip Vacations", is possibly too irrelevant for you to report!

But then again on Thursday, we are expecting a Million people in streets of kathmandu, demonstrating against the King!

During the last few weeks, hundreds have died & injured!

Why aren't you covering the Nepalese Revolution?

Isn't the Great, Important, Sensitive, Strategic, Rich, Blooming, Super Power nation such as Nepal, important enough for you to cover?

So 1st, I thought maybe Nepal is not important enough for you to cover!

:-k 2nd, I thought maybe you are not aware of Nepalese Revolution!

Then I told myself:

"Fat Chance Ahreeman! That SAVAK-che (Minoo Mojahed) with them Beady Eyes is well monitoring the global news! If a Fly farts in Central Africa, Liberator is well aware of it! If he is not glued to CNN International, then he is reading Global Media on the net, monitoring All Persian Media & Forums, or sending IMs & FAX back & fore to opposition members! So yes, there is a fat chance that he is not aware of Nepal!"

Then why is he not covering Nepal?

:idea1: 3rd, it clicked! The Conspiracy!

It is the:

Liberatoriano_Nepalese Conspiracy!

Could it be because, yet another Monarchy is biting the dust?!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?!
Could it be because,
:hammerhead:
Another Monarch :turk: closed down the parliament, closed down the press, closed down Freedom of Speech, Guzzled Down the National Budget, Jailed everyone from Raja Kapour to Shooshoo Komar, closed down All Freedoms & now the Masses of Nepal are closing him & his palace down?

Lets see, let's put 2 + 2 together!

King of Nepal is about to get Fragged =2
Liberator is a Monarchist =2
2 + 2 = Cover Up! :coverup:

Yeeeeeeeees! That's why!

Yes dears,

2 + 2 # 4 [-X
but
2 + 2 = Cover Up! :coverup:

Are you trying to shove this one under the Persian Rug?! :coverup:
Hmmmmmmmmmm? :question:

Otherwise, why not report Nepalese Revolution! A Revolution where mass opposition from Marxist all the way to Nationalists are about to Frag the King?!

Another Monarchy down the drain! :sling:

Now, I would like to project to you with your own blend o special "Liberatorian Guilt Trip":
[-X
Shame on you, Shaaaaaaaaaaaaame
Sharmetun Bad, Shaaaaaaaaarm
Shaaaaaaaaame, Shaaaaaaaaaaaaame
Shaaaaaaaaaaaarm, Shaaaaaaaaaarm
Shame on you, Sharmetun Bad.

I am glad that I have exposed & unveiled the

Liberatoriano_Nepalese Conspiracy!

Down with Nepalese King (Liberator's Long Lost Hindu_Buddhist Cousin) :turk:
Long Live "Soon To Be Republic".
Another Monarchy Bites The Dust!

Sweet words o Freddie Mercury:
:pianoman:
Boom Boom Boom
Another one bites the dust
Boom Boom Boom
Another one bites the dust
Oh another one bites, another one bites,
Another one bites the dust ................

And all this, when I just wanted to take a vacation & go to kathmandu! There goes the vacation!
I hope you are happy! Your cousin, due to lack of democracy, had ruined my vacation!
:tear:
The last place on Earth, The Hermit Kingdom, The Hippie Paradise, the quiet hideaway has turned to Tehran of 1978!
I am warning you Liberator! Masses of Nepal will not let go of your shorts!
Liberator, Shame on you :vik: & your cousin :turk: !

Volla, and I rest my case!
:firedvl:
Conspiracy Exposing X
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Liberator » Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:22 pm

Dr X-jaan,

What I'd like to make clear is that we need to distinguish between Republics like Syria (Dictatorship!) or Iraq (under Saddam) and democratic ones like the USA or France! The same needs to be applied when we talk of Monarchies were we have Saudi Arabia (Asbolute Monarchy!) and Sweden (Constitutional Monarchy) clearly in the case of Nepal, my limited knowledge on recent developments tells me that, the King does not rule as a constitutional monarchy and has assumed absolute powers since 2005. So let us not MISLEAD the audience because of our political agendas. Have I mislead anyone into thinking that all republics are dictatorships such as the Syrian or North Korean ones? Never.

If I would have brought up such a point I could have said:

Hey look at how democratic all monarchies are :prince: :royal: :immortalg: :immortalc: :chilling: :drum: :announcement: :B and bring you the example of Sweden or the Netherlands and then said

Hey look republics are all dictatorships and backward and brought you the example of AN or ASSad: :hizboansar: :basij: :pasdar: :whip: :grenadelauncher: :imam: :caveman:

That's not a fair representation for either system.


Furthermore 70% of the country is said to be in the hands of communist rebels who want to establish a communist state! There has been a civil war in Nepal against the maoist rebels which has led to well over 10,000 deaths. From what i've understood the King has assumed these executive powers because he deemed the actions of the previous democratically elected government to have been futile and that there was need for stronger measures to deal with these enemies of the state (communists).

Is it the maoist rebels (communists) who are turning peaceful protests violent? In my opinion this can very much be so. My knowledge of Nepal has mainly been on news reports on maoist attacks in that country and I do believe they play a leading role in the recent violence in that country.

Even in the USA, President George W Bush went against the wishes of the people and went to war against Iraq because he deemed it to be in the interest of his country. Wouldn't this be more extreme (going to war against another country) than the King in Nepal assuming absolute powers in order to crush terrorists in his own country?

Again i'm not well versed in the internal politics of Nepal to be able to comment in depth on the current situation. However my first part still stands in that we need to distinguish between DICTATORSHIPS and DEMOCRACIES and this applies in both cases of Republics and Monarchies.



Ba Sepaas
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Emam Kooni » Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:33 pm

As always, I am in the Liberator’s corner. Majority of Iranian’s want to be told when, how, and what to do, as well as how fast to do it ! We need a Shah who is charismatic, wise, and a true leader. Oh no, not this Emam, but Shah Reza Pahlavi. And, off course we need to stock up on some Coca-cola, Pepsi-cola, and Osso bottles as well, to offer democratic choice to our esteemed islamic comrades who do not play to the tune!

And, I am certain that we won’t be able to use
User avatar
Emam Kooni
Specialist
Specialist
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:51 am

Postby Emam Kooni » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:51 pm

1-Leade:Image
2- I think U finally are correct: U should kiss up to the Liberator, since U are not yet wordy to kiss up to the Leader.
3-I may have been wong, after all we may have a use for.
User avatar
Emam Kooni
Specialist
Specialist
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:51 am

Postby Winston06 » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:52 am

Hey look republics are all dictatorships and backward and brought you the example of AN or ASSad


France? Germany? Israel? South korea? The USA? Italy?....etc

They are not all dictatorship!
Winston06
Private
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Liberator » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:59 am

Winston06 wrote:
Hey look republics are all dictatorships and backward and brought you the example of AN or ASSad


France? Germany? Israel? South korea? The USA? Italy?....etc

They are not all dictatorship!



Dear Winston,


I believe you didn't understand my post very well. What I was saying is that if I applied the same rationale as Dr X has done, without differentiating between different forms of government, then I could say that all Monarchies are all great places and point to the successful ones and then proceed to put down all Republics by pointing out all the dictatorships, tyranny etc. As I put in my comments this would not be a fair comparision/ representation for both systems of government.



Ba Sepaas
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Ahreeman X » Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:12 pm

Liberator:

I was joking around with you, but you started the old debate again! Well Alrighty then, you want to get serious & get down to political science & philosophy? Then let's roll baby! Bring it on to Poppa Ahreeman!

Dr X-jaan


Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaana?!

"Even in the USA, President George W Bush went against the wishes of the people and went to war against Iraq because he deemed it to be in the interest of his country."


Earth to Liberator Calling:
According to Constitution of United States of America, the president does not need the permission of the majority of people to declare war! Even though @ the time, the majority were behind him! Technically, President needs the permission of the Congress (basically Ceremonial), but the ultimate decision is taken by the president to declare war. Officially, The Congress declares War, but in reality, it is the president who declares War!

"What I was saying is that if I applied the same rationale as Dr X has done, without differentiating between different forms of government, then I could say that all Monarchies are all great places and point to the successful ones and then proceed to put down all Republics by pointing out all the dictatorships, tyranny etc."


"Have I mislead anyone into thinking that all republics are dictatorships such as the Syrian or North Korean ones? Never"


Haj Viking:

What you are doing is philosophically called:

Maqlateh & Safsateh (Twisting the Truth by comparing Apples with Oranges)!
You see, you probably do not understand the meaning of these two words: Maqlateh & Safsateh.
Because you do not speak nor understand "Arabic" or "Arabic rooted Persian" traditional terms.
But the best that I can explain them is above.

You are comparing two entities "Monarchy" & "Republic".
You bring evidence that there exists:
Good Monarchies (Constitutional Monarchies) & Bad Monarchies (Absolutist Monarchies).
Good Republics (Democratic Republics) & Bad Republics (Dictatorial Regimes).
However,

Your logic is flawed & this is why:

Go read the dictionary & you will see that both
Good Monarchies (Constitutional Monarchies) & Bad Monarchies (Absolutist Monarchies), are by definition Monarchies; however, by definition, a Republic must be a Democratic Republic! So,

Read the definition of "Republic" & you will notice that states such as:

Egypt, Libya, etc. are Totalitarian Fascist Regimes. They are not republics!
(In a republic, presidency is not for life.)

Syria, North Korea, etc. are Hereditarial Absolutist Monarchies. They are not republics!
(In a republic, presidency does not transfer automatically from father to son.)

Iran, Sudan, etc. are Theocratic Oligarchies. They are not republics!
(In a republic there exists no Tyrant spiritual Leader for life.)

Let's not kid ourselves. Anyone can name his regime a Republic, but the definition of a Republic is in the dictionary!

We have two types of Monarchies: Constitutional & Absolutist, but we only have one type of Republic, which is called Democratic!

UK is a Monarchy but also Nepal is a Monarchy.
USA is a Republic but Syria & Egypt are not republics.

Look in the dictionary under the definitions!
And stop your Maqlateh & Safsateh (Twisting the Truth by comparing Apples with Oranges)!

In the past arguments, I made my point that either Monarchial systems, both Constitutional & Absolutist are not the absolute representations of the "Will of The People", simply because there will always be a Damn King which cannot be voted out of the office! The heredity of monarchy is the greatest flaw of its system. The best example is Iran:

Reza Khan (Worthy Shah) with Balls of Steel
Mohamad Reza Shah (Ups & Downs) with Balls of Copper
Reza De Nim Pahlavi (Cheeseball) with Cotton Balls

Rule by heredity is illogical.
Rule by qualifications & votes is logical.

Heredity of governorship for the head of state, without consideration of the qualification, is simply a crime! That is why Monarchial System is an extinct & outdated system of government.

And that is why your logic is flawed & Dead Wrong!

"let us not MISLEAD the audience because of our political agendas."


Then stop it immediately! Stop your Monarchial Maqlateh & Safsateh (Twisting the Truth by comparing Apples with Oranges)!

But then again if you are into Masters & Servants, also believe that Masses of Iran are & will always remain as Gav O Guspandan, then by all means, like "Bache Kuni" & All other Necro_Monarchists of LA, you are in need of a Shah which is the modern version of Caliphate or Velayat al Faqih!

Take a good look @ Monarchists & fans of Reza Pahlavi, such as our own "Bache Kuni" or Old Fart Dinosaurs (LA & London) or Baby Doper Diaper Monarchists (Cheesy Monarchist Forums)! They openly admit that Iranians are Olaq; therefore, a Shah must rule over them! And anyone who does not like it, then Monarchists must & will shove Coke, 7Up & Pepsi bottles or Cans up their Asses! This is the typical Monarchist mentality! Now some like our own "Bache Kuni", just come right out & say how they feel, but some others like Pirouznia or Cyrus The Zepert are Closet Absolutist Monarchists & shy to speak out their true feelings! @ least our own "Bache Kuni" is brave & honest enough to openly state his feelings!

I respect honesty; therefore, I have more respect for Bache Kuni, than Closet Dictators such as Pirouznia & Cyrus The Zeperet!

More power to Bache Kuni
Javid Kun Kunak!
Javid Shah!

Flash Back

I told you before that the only reason today's Euro_Pee_On Monarchies are civilized, is because the masses of Europe had forced them into becoming civilized! In the past, all of them were Absolutist Monarchies, same as Asian Monarchies! Through the years, masses of Europe had forced these monarchies to become Constitutional monarchies! So these Monarchies did not become democracies by choice of the Monarchs, but by force of the masses!

Monarchy in its nature is @ its worst "Reactionary & Oppresive" or @ its best "Outdated & Illogical"!

May it have a puppet monarch in a monkey suit:
Queen Elizabeth
or
Juan Carlos

or

May it have a Real Monarch with a sword:
Malek Abdullah bin abd al-Aziz Al Saud
Saudi Arabia (Al Mamlakah al Arabiyah as Saudiyah)
or
Sultan Mohammed the VI
Morocco (Al Mamlakah al Maqribiyah)

Haj Viking,
Scientifically, a progressive & a logical man, cannot be a monarchist! All kinds of monarchy that is!

But then again, if you still want to play "Shah O Vazir" in 21st Century & in the Year 2006! Then who am I to stop you! You are my main man! More power to you! I will even buy you a Crown & a Throne!

And Yabadi, Yabadi, Yabadoo, Yabadoo, ..............
That's All Folks!
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Emam Kooni » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:51 am

prologicam wrote:....Koon Kesh e Bad bakhte falak zadeh e bi nava e sar dar gardoon e heyroon, ..... WHO WANTS TO BEFRIEND YOU?, lostsoul.

[b]I think we should excuse Pro-traumatic encounter with Mr.
User avatar
Emam Kooni
Specialist
Specialist
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:51 am

Postby Liberator » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:32 am

Dear Dr X,

I was looking forward to your smileys!!! What happened! Man they're one of the highlights of your posts!!! :D (btw that's the only smiley you will see in this post as i'm short on time!)




Lets look at the definitions (taken from Encyclpedia Britannica):


Main Entry: re•pub•lic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun


Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC

A

(1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president

(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government


B

(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia



Nowhere in the definition do I see any mention of a Republic being a "democracy". Democracy is a seperate entity alltogether which can be applied both to the Republican system of government and the Monarchial system of government.

Also one part of the definition says:

a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law


Going back to the Iraq war issue and President Bush - didn't he have the supreme power in that case? Congress which represents the people did not as you admitted pass a resolution declaring war on Iraq and did not approve of President Bush going to war with Iraq; so the will of the people was neglected. You admit that "technically" the Congress had to approve of the war but then you go on to say that it didn't matter since it's "basically ceremonal"! What is the point of having rules and regulations if people don't follow them? Is this democratic? In my opinion it isn't since the will of the people is being neglected. You also say that a majority of people were behind the war, well since congress which is the representative of the people did not approve of it I can not help but think that it wasn't supported by a majority no matter what distorted "opinion polls" might say. Whether I supported this action (I did) is not important as i'm only trying to make a point since your argument is that republic = democracy and there is no room for Dictatorial Republics!

Egypt, Syria, North Korea and so on are all classified as being Republics and recognized as such by all world governments. But are they democratic? No. Are they democracies? No.


In a republic, presidency is not for life.


Again nowhere in the definition of a "Republic" does it mention how long a President should serve. So yes if we go from that definition a President can be for life!

In a republic, presidency does not transfer automatically from father to son.


Same as above!

In a republic there exists no Tyrant spiritual Leader for life.


Same as above!


Dr X-jaan, what you are referring to is called "DEMOCRACY" and is different to the definition of a "Republic". This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says on democracy and it clearly answers all of the above concerns that you've raised:


Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies


Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.

4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges



Continuing...

We have two types of Monarchies: Constitutional & Absolutist, but we only have one type of Republic, which is called Democratic!



Well I hope i've disuaded you from thinking so.

UK is a Monarchy but also Nepal is a Monarchy.
USA is a Republic but Syria & Egypt are not republics.


UK is a Parliamentary Monarchy (democratic) and Nepal for the time being is an Absolutist Monarchy (it's switched at times from being Constitutional to Absolutist in the past 100 years) which is not democratic.

USA is a democratic republic but North Korea is a communist republic which is not democratic.

Also let me add that there is no such thing as a PERFECT/PURE democracy in the world today - neither USA or France or any other democratic republic or Constitutional/Parlimentary Monarchy is a pure democracy.

The definition for pure democracy is:

Main Entry: pure democracy
Function: noun


: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives



Moving on...


In the past arguments, I made my point that either Monarchial systems, both Constitutional & Absolutist are not the absolute representations of the "Will of The People"


Well as I have pointed out (above) there is no government in the world that represents the "absolute representation of the will of the people"! Neither the U.S. (Federal Republic) nor U.K. (Constitutional Monarchy) does so.

simply because there will always be a Damn King which cannot be voted out of the office!


I think i've addressed the importance of a symbolic figurehead for Iran and the roles I think he should have in the future that is after all what we've been discussing previously in this thread. This thread has been created for Republicans and Monarchists to persuade the public why they should vote/opt for the respective systems of government.


Heredity of governorship for the head of state, without consideration of the qualification, is simply a crime! That is why Monarchial System is an extinct & outdated system of government.


Ok now we are going back to what this thread really was about and I've pointed out why in the case of Iran a constitutional monarch with ceremonial powers is preferred; and I believe we have addressed the issue that the Monarchial System is not extinct nor outdated when we have some of the most progressive and modern countries today being Monarchial (ex. Sweden, Japan, U.K.).

And that is why your logic is flawed & Dead Wrong!


I don't concede defeat that easily!


Take a good look @ Monarchists & fans of Reza Pahlavi, such as our own "Bache Kuni"


What has led you to belive that Bacheh Kooni is a Monarchist!? If anything the impression I have gotten from him is anything but that and if i'm not mistaken I have even read provacative statements against the Pahlavi family by him.

Dr jaan i'm a Constitutional Monarchist and that is what I will vote for in a free Iran because I firmly believe this is the best form of government for our country based on its culture, history... We are here talking about two systems of government not about "cyber-people".


Flash Back

I told you before that the only reason today's Euro_Pee_On Monarchies are civilized, is because the masses of Europe had forced them into becoming civilized! In the past, all of them were Absolutist Monarchies, same as Asian Monarchies! Through the years, masses of Europe had forced these monarchies to become Constitutional monarchies! So these Monarchies did not become democracies by choice of the Monarchs, but by force of the masses!


Again I do believe I did respond to this when you raised it by asking you: Can Iranian force their leaders to be civilized? This can apply to both Monarchy and Republic. In the monarchial system that I promote (Constitutional) the monarch has only ceremonial powers but in the republican system that you promote the President has executive powers and thus if you claim Iranian leaders are not civilized this would be more of a threat to our nation than a Constitutional Monarch!


Scientifically, a progressive & a logical man, cannot be a monarchist! All kinds of monarchy that is!


Thanks man! LOL, I still like you though! But I think I will disagree with that as I've done above!


Ba Sepaas
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Ahreeman X » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:32 pm

Liberator:

"a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law"


I. The Key Words is "Elected Officials"! In a Republic, there exists Elected Officials by the masses; therefore, All Republics are Democracies.

II. Encyclopaedia Britannica with its flawed definitions can roll up as a Burrito & get shoved up Queen's Butt!

III. Here are the experts from The Political Definition of a Republic in short:

A Republic is a system of government, where the head of the state is "Elected" by the people ........
(General Political Encyclopaedia aka Farhang-e Siyasi)

"Elected"
Could be "Direct" (European Parliamentary) or Indirect (Electoral College USA).

Get it? Elected means Democratic! That is all the meaning, which you need to know. This is the basic political definition according to the "political encyclopaedia" (Farhang-e Siyasi).

IV. Stop playing "Word Games"! Ahreeman don't play that! Ahreeman don't play Scrabble!

"admit that "technically" the Congress had to approve of the war but then you go on to say that it didn't matter since it's "basically ceremonal"! What is the point of having rules and regulations if people don't follow them? Is this democratic? In my opinion it isn't since the will of the people is being neglected. You also say that a majority of people were behind the war, well since congress which is the representative of the people did not approve of it I can not help but think that it wasn't supported by a majority no matter what distorted "opinion polls" might say."


Still playing "Word Games"?!
Majority of Congress did give him the permission (later on) & were pro war.
Majority of people were pro war (after that famous speech in State of The Union).
In special cases, president does not need even the OK of the congress to declare war.

"Egypt, Syria, North Korea and so on are all classified as being Republics and recognized as such by all world governments"


Word Games again! They are classified as Republics, only "By Name"!

"Dr X-jaan, what you are referring to is called "DEMOCRACY" and is different to the definition of a "Republic". This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says on democracy and it clearly answers all of the above concerns that you've raised"


The Frag with Encyclopedia Britannica.
The only Encyclopaedia you need, is:
"Encyclopaedia Ahreemanica!"
(A Living Ocean of Knowledge)
I state that by Ahreemanic Powers invested in me!
That's All!

Encyclopedia Britannica is the most flawed Encyclopaedia, but even so, it still stated that:
"a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law"


Get it? "Elected Officials" is the Key Word.
All Republics must be Democratic.
Stop playing Word Games!
Monarcho Word Games are out of style, it is 2006!

"Also let me add that there is no such thing as a PERFECT/PURE democracy in the world today - neither USA or France or any other democratic republic or Constitutional/Parlimentary Monarchy is a pure democracy."


Nothing is Absolute & pure, but then we have the closest to perfection, which is The Republic.

"Main Entry: pure democracy
Function: noun

: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives"


More Monarchial Word Games?!

"Moving on"


Don't move on too fast! Have a 2nd cup of tea in IPC Chai-Khaneh. Ahay Bache Kuni, bring the 2nd cup for Haj Viking?

Hala Chai Dovom meyl konid Haj Seyed Javad-e Liberator?!

"I don't concede defeat that easily!"


No one wants you to concede defeat! This is not a game! This is about The Evolution of your brain from the 16th century pattern of thought & upgrade it to the 21st Century school of thought!

Come out of Persian Monarchial LaLa Land, will ya?
27 years has passed by!
People in Iran do not even know anymore "what Monarchy means!"

"What has led you to believe that Bacheh Kooni is a Monarchist!?"


I. Please be proper:

It is Mr. Bache Kuni, to you!
@ least
"Fellow IPCer Bache Kuni"
"Good Fellow IPCer Bache Kuni"
"HeShe Bache Kuni-ship"
"Honorable Bache Kun"
"Comrade Kun"
or such to you!

II. Come off it! Bache Kuni is a solid Reza Pahlavi fan!

" I have even read provacative statements against the Pahlavi family by him."


That is because he is confused! Many blows to head does that!
He just wants confrontation & argument by anyone who he can get his hands on!
"Dam Dami Mezajeh!"
(He doesn't know & therefore can't decide what he wants!)
But still, when it all comes down, he is a Monarchist.

"Dr jaan i'm a Constitutional Monarchist and that is what I will vote for in a free Iran because I firmly believe this is the best form of government for our country based on its culture, history"


Like I do not know you? We have just met? Are you giving me new info?

"This can apply to both Monarchy and Republic. In the monarchial system that I promote (Constitutional) the monarch has only ceremonial powers but in the republican system that you promote the President has executive powers and thus if you claim Iranian leaders are not civilized this would be more of a threat to our nation than a Constitutional Monarch!"


More word games?

So in other words, you say that Iranians are Gav O Olaq & more likely they shall remain so (Typical Monarchial Speech)?!

The Key word is "Elected Official". People will elect the president!
In a republic there are Checks & Balances. President cannot become a Dictator because he has limited powers overseen by other branches of government.

Quote:
Scientifically, a progressive & a logical man, cannot be a monarchist! All kinds of monarchy that is!


"Thanks man! LOL, I still like you though! But I think I will disagree with that as I've done above! "


Dear Good Fellow Lib (Bache Kuni style o talk):

You maybe a great comrade, a good friend, a solid base of IPC, a great patriot, etc.
But
You are not a scientific man!
Why you ask?
Because:

a) You are a Creationist (Believe in God)
b) You are a Monarchist (Believe in Outdated System of Government)
c) You are more Emotional than Logical.

These are facts not fiction; therefore, you are a lovely guy but you are not a scientific man!

Face The Truth.

And once more as I told Amir,

Don't send a search party after me but be aware that,
I have to take off to Mexico, so if you do not hear from me again, then trace my last movements & figure that either Ingilisa (The English) got me @ the airport, or the Mexican Bandits got me @ the desert! Either those, or I had joined the Chinese Resistance (fed up with the Iranian one)! Got to run along!

Later Fellow Liberator (Bache Kuni Style O Talk)!

Adios
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1370
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Iran Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron