Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by egroen, Jan 21, 2010.
If they fail and are slaughtered, it makes the road that much longer.
Maybe, but maybe not... remember this is not a student-led movement like in China and persians are decidedly different.
It was not the initial demonstrations that succeeded in '79 -- but the subsequent demontrations at the mourning periods. Of course the current regime knows this, so it will be interesting how they handle the next one.
If they meet the next protests with violence it could literally snowball out of their ability to control, and prompt more and more of the Bhasij (the ones that are actually iranian, and not hired guns from hamas and hezbollah) to walk away (many have already done so - not nearly enough) and lose the revolutionary guard support (who will act in their own best interest).
I wish them the best of luck, but if the slaughtering starts I think we should step in immediately - while there are still leaders to save.
Iran is pure evil. They ruined a perfectly good brutal fascist dictatorship merely because they no longer wanted to be oppressed by an American stooge.
Use the we had to destroy Iran to save it excuse, somehow I doubt that you would have many allies who would wish to take part in an invasion of Iran.
No doubt Israel will rant, onward Christian soldiers.
I suppose an invasion of Iran would be on the cards if Beck and Palin are the USA's so called leadership.
Anyone linked to this?
Only a small part is about Iran, but it's interesting. A recent Hitchens clip, where he predicts that the Iranian regime will fall, mainly because the Iranian youths have "seen through religion". He says he has big hopes for Iran.
I believe the regime will fall... hoping sooner than later, and without bloodshed.
Please let the Regime know the world will be watching on February 11!
From a friend in Tehran:
"i will try to take pictures on 22 bahman( 11 feb) but night and day on tv they say that they will have no merci on protesters on that day and even one of their leaders have said its worth killing 75000 people to keep this dirty regime alive!
but me and my friends..( we are many) will post and send what we can!
for example we have many male friends including my fiancee writing slogans on the walls during nights..its the first time during this 31 year we are looking forward to daheye zajr to give this demons the hardest blow they have ever encountered!"
Heck, at the very least, indifferent westerners should be tuning in just at the chance for cheaper gas! Iran is the third richest oil nation in the world... and current sanctions against the regime keep that oil flowing primarily to Russia and China. Under less despotic rule, sanctions could be lifted and cheaper gas for all
Yep, that evil fascist that believed so much in concentrating power in the hands of the state, that he privatized state-owned assets, gave women the right to vote, and giving ownership of land to landless peasants.
Pahlavi Foundation. Look it up. It was his personal company where he funneled billions, upon billions dollars of Iranian money, much taken from oil revenues into his personal bank accounts, his so called 'land reform" during the White Revolution did very little to given pesants land, in fact its widely considered a failure, large estates got transfered to the noble family once more (see Ervand Abhramnian's, History of Iran).
The Shah alienated pretty much every section of society in the White Reveloution. He alienated the young intellectuals, students, and middle class by banning all parties except the pro-Shah Ressurection Party and forcing everyone to become a member, if you didn't become a member. His secret police jailed, tortured, and practiced dissapperances of dissenters and protesters. He grew incrasingly autocratic and heavy handed throughout his reign and styled himself as Arya Mehra (The Aryan Sun)
The religous establishment was alienated as the Shah banned the headscarf and veil and forcibly de-veiled women, then he went as far as jailing and exiling religous leaders like Kohmeni. Thus he lost the support of the generally pro-Shah religous establishment.
He alienated the bazaari's, the middle class, by attempting to excerscie price controls in the market place (sort of like Chavez) people who failed to agree to the price controls or pay his taxes would be jailed and their shops shut down, many of these measures were enforced by the Shah's feared secret police.
Despite pouring vast sums of money into the army, billions upon billions and purchasing large amounts of military hardware and equipment he failed to win the loyalty of even the army. They felt no loyalty to him. He used them frequently to break up portesters, he sent them into Qom to break up a protest by seminary students. It often turned into massacres of protesters. Thus when the Reveloution came the army stayed in its barracks.
He alienated even his own beuracracy, they felt more kinship with the middle class than with the Shah.
Thus all the support the Shah had left was the nobility.
So what happened in 1979 was the culmination of all these forces. The students, the intellectuals, the middle class, the baazaris, the communists, the liberals, the religous establishment joined together and overthrew the Shah in a bloodless reveloution. The Shah fled the country.
His own autorcracy, brutal methods, heavy handedness, and his foolish alienation of everyone who might have supported him was his undoing.
I'm really not that interested in debating the merits of the Shah at this time, but this post is filled with a lot of hyperbole. Look, we do not want anther Constitutional Monarchy in Iran - We want a secular democarcy.
That said, women's emancipation started with the dawn of the Pahlavi monarchy. During the time of the Shah, women served in the armed forces and police. It was even uncommon in many western countries to have female police officers in the 1960's. The Shah's regime also established some of the most progressive family laws, which gave Iranian women more rights than in most other countries in those times. Women were free to serve as judges in those times, which they are not today, and of course, women could dress freely in those times, which they can't today.
During the time of the Shah, 30% of higher education students were women. Today that number stands at 60%. This is nothing the current establishment can take credit for though. You see, many traditional and religious families refused to allow their daughters to attend universities before the revolution, due to the fact that the educational system was so secularized and because they thought that it was immoral and indecent to allow their daughters to mix with other women who wore mini-skirts and makeup. So when the revolution came, and the educational institutions were cleansed of all secularism and "immoral elements", many traditional and religious families allowed and encouraged their daughters and even wives to purse studies in higher education. The difference between now and the time of the Shah, is that women today are second class citizens when it comes to the laws of the state, and that they are forced to adhere to a so called "Islamic dress code", although there is nothing in the Quran that says that women need to cover themselves up. If a man kills his two year old son, he might face the death penalty, but if he kills his two year old daughter, he might get only one year! Those are the laws of these monsters.
My family, like millions of other Iranians were opposed to that revolution back then. Just because one million or so people took to the streets, it doesn't mean that the vast majority of Iranians were behind the revolution. We were part of the silent majority. But everything went against us - including the biased western media. We had no voice, and we lived in fear, because the radicals who opposed the imperial regime were the kind of people one should fear.
The imperial regime and top officials reeked of corruption, no question! As for the U.S. and other Western powers. I am no stranger to these things that you mention here. But I don't see why we should let any of that stand in our way now that the people of Iran are indeed fighting for their freedom in a REAL revolution. It's a complicated world we live in, and the politics of this world reflect how complicated it all is. But to see it in simple terms: Right now people are fighting for their freedom. Freedom from one of the most repressive and radical regimes in the world, which has tormented the Iranian people for 30+ years. Let's support them!
Egroen, while I agree with the guts of what you are saying, it is acknowledged even in the west that at the very least, the current government does have a large minority support.
I'm not disputing most of this. What I'm disputing was amadeus's claim that the Shah was somehow better than the current regime. It wasn't.
Also I contest your claim the Reveloution didn't have majority support. You're confusing two things. The Reveloution of 1979 with the Islamic Reveloution. They're actually two distinct things. The Reveloution of 1979 certainely had popular support, as i said it was supported by the baazari's, the middle class, the students, the intellectuals, the religous establishment and for forth.
Then, Kohmeni's movement and the liberal movement that wanted secular sort of diverged but the liberals were always in the minority.
There was a election held to decide of the people wanted an Islamic Republic, a referandum was held. 98.2% voted Yes on he referandm of March 1979 saying they wanted an Islamic Republic. Turnout was at 90%. The only people who protested this was people like Barzgan who sought more secular rule, they were clearly in the minority
Kohmeni's support was further solidified during the hostage crisis and the Iran-Iraq war
It was at this time that the referandum on the Constitution was held 97% of the people votes Yes on the Constitution and the turn out was 80-90%. (Abhramnain's History of Iran) While the turnout for this one was lower, it was still clearly the majority.
Those who resisted were very much a minority there was no such thing as a "silent majority". It was a loud powerful majority that brought the Islamic government, the people who opposed it were a tiny minority.
Things may be different now, but that was the situation in 1979.
Yep. The one who took over after the CIA overthrew their democratically-elected government and put its own stooge in power. The same person who brutally tortured and murdered thousands of innocent Iranians.
Link to video.
Who claimed the US was far more corrupt while pretending his own country was not very corrupt at all.
Link to video.
And who was a blatant anti-Semite.
Link to video.
It's good to be the king.
Link to video.
I'm sorry, what's supposed to happen on Feb 11?
31st Anniversary of the Revolution -- the date of the pro-democracy demonstration in
Yes... many do not question what they are being told. That the mullahs and revolutionary guard are all that stands between them and the evil western powers and zionists intent on destroying their religion and culture. As long as ignorance and disinformation are accepted and not questioned, the regime has a lot of support.
The regime closed state-owned businesses and schools to get people to the pro-regime rallies -- and there were tens of thousands. But there have been millions demonstrating against the regime out of their own volition while under threats of prison and death.... how many more agree but are not willing to risk their lives (and who can blam them)?
Ahmadinejad may very well have won that election without fraud... but public sentiment has changed much since that time.
Perhaps not in absolute terms, but relative to its time it sounds like it was better.
I'm not sure a democratic Iran would be pro-Western. I think the nuclear programme, for example, would continue to be an issue unless the new government is so weak that they must cave in to foreign demands.
Hang on, I'll just call the US, France and Britain and inform them that they are not pro-Western, since they obviously have their own nuclear programmes...
I'm not sure whether you're deliberately missing the point for some sort personal agenda or whether you're really clueless as to the pertinent issues.
Yes, of course there's a great deal of hypocrisy about nuclear programmes. The only real explanation as to why Iran's nuclear programme is frowned on is that it's considered a pariah state by the West, not least because of its purported support for terrorist groups (not denying that here, although there's a great deal of obfuscation involved in that charge). But then again, Israel is considered a pariah state by plenty of non-Western countries. As to why Western opinion is considered more legitimate grounds for concern, I would like to know too.
In this context, the issue should melt away if the radical government is replaced by something much more moderate and democratic. But I think it's likely that the West will still continue to insist on the complete dismantling of the nuclear programme, perhaps just so as to affirm its power and influence.
The other thing is I'm not sure you're understanding the conventional usage of the term "pro-Western". I admit I didn't read the long post explaining your position (if it does), but I would like to say that pro-Western generally means having interests that are aligned with the West and perhaps not being in active opposition to Western dominance of the international stage. Sharing some similar values with the West, if that can be a meaningful descriptive for countries with very different cultural backgrounds, isn't, as history shows (with instances of Western intervention against democratically-elected governments, for example), enough to qualify a state as pro-Western.
I hope everything is clear.
Separate names with a comma.