i]Originally posted by StellarX
Both are fundamentally about power and while one hides behind religion so the other puts on two faces so you can pick the aspect of the same
motive you least dislike. If one wants to go further you can simple say that in the one country the religion is Islam while in the other it is the
almighty dollar with people basically getting to choose which candidate best resemble's their personal views of the host religion.
That analogy doesn't substantiate the original argument though. Your talking about political system complexities and narrowing it down to a simple
analogy that is neither coherent to debate or accurate. The Iranian system ultimately hands the power to the unlected, contrary to the US. Btw, i'm
not sure why your counter argument regarding the legitimacy Irans atrocious regime is that of a comparison with the US. When not only does it serve
to further give credence to my point but also highlight peripheral anomolies in both systems subsequently sending the argument on a tangent!
So Iran is about forty years behind the US in it's battle against sexism. Big #%# deal. How short your memory is?
Regardless of time frame, it's relevant and dispicable. Especially when the leaders you condone in Iran have the audacity to suggest that women in
Iran have the most freedom in the world. Women are also targetted in courts and have limited social freedoms compared to men. Take a trip there and
Well the people did choose the Mullahs above the Shah so maybe we should discuss what they could have chosen if it wasn't for the Shah's
brutal dictatorial regime? Who really robbed the Iranians of their choices?
Please read up on the transitional period between shah-revolution-khomeini. The mullahs were aware that a theocratic system would be unpopular so
Khomeini actually declared that he would not interfere and let the people rule. He then stuck in a secular puppet prime minister during that period
as to give the illusion of democracy. Once people rallied behind he got rid of him, then installed Khameini and established the theocratic state. The
people by no way chose this system, to suggest so is ignorant to the facts. During this period, Khomeini then fully embraced the Iran-Iraq war,
describing it as a "god-send". The perfect distraction and tool for national union and backing government. I don't understand why you have
conveniently ignored these facts, i can only assume you are unaware of them!
So is frequently claimed without much in the way of facts to substantiate it. As it stands why can't all countries meddle in the affairs of
others ( which they are normally neighbours to or share cultural or historic ties with) when the US meddles everywhere from it's Continental fortress
in North America?
Here are pictures of Iranian supplies issued to Iraqi militias..
Their meddling has been also acknowledged by many monitors outside of US control. Deny it as much as you want. The problem is when it comes to US
meddling (which im not denying) its accepted, meddling from any other state and its denial!!
Not nearly as many deaths as Israeli and American violence in Syria, Irag, Lebanon, Iran and Israel? Again there is this presumption that Iran
does all these things when the last person to be so accused, Saddam Hussein, proved to be innocent on all charges? Don't you learn anything from
history beside that history seems to be 'anti-American' in that it does not reflect your propaganda induced view of recent history?
Saddam was innocent of killing hundreds of thousands of his own people? I think not. Guilty as charged! Regarding Lebanon, i seem to remember the US
supporting a secular government in Lebanon whilst the Iranians were arming a movement(namely HEzbollah) to the teeth with weapons. The same movement
that stated in its manifesto that it intends to impose Islamic Rule over Lebanon. That certainly puts it into context.
Not that i really believe that many in Iranian jails would be foreign agents but i can easily understand how the Iranian government can get
away with without losing too much support in the Iranian public. Either way the Shah just had the political opposition assassinated so frankly the
Mullahs have already shown that they are more humane than the average western puppet ruler
Humane? Are you kidding. Did the Shah have his agents harrass people in the street for merely wearing a tie? Did he have women beaten to death and
throw acid in their faces for not wearing a hejab? The mullahs slayed thousands during the revolution and continue to do so. THe mullahs have driven
their population to the brink of economic and social collapse. You go ask the average Iranian who has lived under both systems which they prefer, the
answer will be a resounding wish for pre 1979!
It's not easy to attempt a defense of a regime that the world can clearly do without so basically i would rather not say anything good about
them if did not feel somehow compelled to paint a few clerics as what is 'wrong' with the world order. Such fantastical delusions is why the
American government can get away with installing puppets, building bases or just invading countries without you raising your eyebrows as to just how
dictatorial and 'evil' that in fact is.
I concur, the US has got to rid itself of imposing puppet governments. That policy has now come back to bite them to the degree where even any
government innocently aligned and allied with the US fears the domestic allegation of being a puppet. Therein lies the challenge for future US
foreign policy. America has to find a balance between assistance and interference and again has to win hearts and minds.
Stellar i just want to re-iterate that i mean no hostility with my opposition to your posts. I relish debate and as im sure you do also. It's nice
to learn of opposing viewpoints and also to understand the foundations of such. A star for you for clearly taking the time to analyse, interpret and
subsequently provide counter points for continuance.