Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in street

[KanadaHye]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

1. Why would their end goal be to destabilize the country and drum up support from the west? Isn't their goal to have Mousavi in power?

2. How would that be possible? You're telling me there is no way we'd find out about any proof their showing? Wouldn't we hear it through SOME corridor?

3. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree with each other. I say it's possible to have a free election in Iran and find out who really won, you say it isn't.

1) They can't have Mousavi in power without western interference.

2) We only see and hear what those in power want us to see and hear.

3) I say it's not possible to have a free and fair election anywhere in the world. Which is why many countries stick to good old fashioned monarchy.

[hipeter924]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

I will say this, I don't agree nor do I buy into Obama, but I don't think he is lying to the American people. Likewise, I think Ahmadinejad is not so evil as he is portrayed to be. I think if both leaders sat down and spoke to each other instead of listening to their "experts" the world would be a better place. Furthermore, I don't think this instability is really needed in the region when everyone faces a economic meltdown. Instead of solving these problems, all this gasoline that is drenched on the fire will burn everyone in the end. Take it from that has experienced the "Islamic Revolution", it did not work then and it will not work now. Being a immigrant and getting displaced within this harsh world is the worst fate that one can experience, to live like gypsies is a rotten existence. Change does not occur overnight, furthermore, before any democracy a nation, all nations, must experience the iron hand of a despot or else they do not understand why a democracy is important. I am not claiming that Ahmadinejad is a despot or anyone in Iran, rather, I am just pointing out to the fact that these ideas of "instant democracy" is a bunch of bull. It took many years of sacrifice for social change to occur in the United States. Finally, these western nations can not honestly expect that the rest of world embrace their standards as the "gold standard". All nations must create a democracy in their own image.

Obama is a politician and he is not an honest man but a power seeking one, he has to seek power to push through his personal plans for America. Obama lied to Armenians about him recognising the Armenian Genocide to gain their votes and support. Obama does things to keep himself in power. Obama is just another Clinton really, popular but useless; when Obama ends his days in politics and his popularity dies away we will be able to find out how damaging the things he did were.

The United States is no longer a democracy exactly, nor ever has it ever been. The US has votes for women and African American's I admit that is a good thing. But the system is widely corrupt, meaning corporate and popular interests have corrupted the system.

Candidates in US elections are unfairly matched, in order to be President for example you must a Democrat or a Republican as they have corporate sponsors. All other parties don't have the power or support to be able to compete, let alone put in a candidate. That alone undermines the entire democratic system.

Then there is another problem which is that in order to be elected you must be religious or of a political interest group aka Anti Abortion group, and though there are some women and black people they find it very hard to get into any political power. They might be allowed in by law but the discrimination and hatred is still partly there.

Ahmadinejad is the elected leader of a theocratic state, to put it simply he cheated the election. But lets put in in perspective, Saudi Arabia and basically every country in the middle east doesn't have even have any election...at least Iranians (men and women) get an election even if its a rather corrupt one. The only clear democracy in the middle east is Lebanon, and I have to admit Israel (even if it denies Arabs political power basically).

But I won't go on to much. I will just simply say that Iran might have a corrupted and failed electoral system but the middle east as a whole is a mess politically. We can't judge Iran on democracy too much when its neighbouring states have even worse standards of democracy.

[Muhaha]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

1) They can't have Mousavi in power without western interference.

2) We only see and hear what those in power want us to see and hear.

3) I say it's not possible to have a free and fair election anywhere in the world. Which is why many countries stick to good old fashioned monarchy.

1. There is a big difference between requiring western support to help get Mousavi in power and getting western support as an end goal in and of itself.

2. Do you really believe this statement? Truly? We hear and see only what we're allowed to hear and see?

3. Free and fair elections are done quite commonly....U.S, Germany, Italy, France, England, Canada, etc. Who are these countries that are sticking to a system of 'good old fashioned monarchy'.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

1. There is a big difference between requiring western support to help get Mousavi in power and getting western support as an end goal in and of itself.

2. Do you really believe this statement? Truly? We hear and see only what we're allowed to hear and see?

3. Free and fair elections are done quite commonly....U.S, Germany, Italy, France, England, Canada, etc. Who are these countries that are sticking to a system of 'good old fashioned monarchy'.

1.) No, an independent and sovereign country shouldn't require any outer influence to determine it's future. However, we all know this isn't the case since the American military occupies about 130 out of roughly 190 countries in the world.

2.) Try to get into a government building anywhere in the world without security clearance and tell me how far you get. Do you really think reporters are like spies digging out news stories? No, they are mostly either public witnesses or professionals who are sent to cover a news story from higher powers.

3) A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy with a full system of government in place as well as a king or queen which the monarch is pretty much a figure head e.g the queen of England has little control over what happens in England, but still is the head of state.

Countries run by this type of monarchy are: andorra, antigua and baruda, australia, bahamas, bahrain, barbadoes, belgium, belize, bhutan, cambodia, canada, denmark, grenada, jamaica, japan, jordan, kuwait, lesotho, liechtenstein, luxembourg, malaysia monaco, morocco, new zealand, norway, papua new guinea, saint kitts and nevis, saint lucia, saint vincent and the grenadines, soloman islands, spain, sweden, thiland, tonga, tuvalu, united arab emirates, the unitied kingdom and Vatican city.

All the countries in the commonwealth have the Queen of England as their queen. (Canada, Australia, etc.)

An absolute monarchy is when a monarch has absolute power to do whatever they want. countries currently in this type of gov. are: brunei, oman, qatar, saudi arabia and swaziland.

[Muhaha]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

1.) No, an independent and sovereign country shouldn't require any outer influence to determine it's future. However, we all know this isn't the case since the American military occupies about 130 out of roughly 190 countries in the world.

2.) Try to get into a government building anywhere in the world without security clearance and tell me how far you get. Do you really think reporters are like spies digging out news stories? No, they are mostly either public witnesses or professionals who are sent to cover a news story from higher powers.

3) A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy with a full system of government in place as well as a king or queen which the monarch is pretty much a figure head e.g the queen of England has little control over what happens in England, but still is the head of state.

Countries run by this type of monarchy are: andorra, antigua and baruda, australia, bahamas, bahrain, barbadoes, belgium, belize, bhutan, cambodia, canada, denmark, grenada, jamaica, japan, jordan, kuwait, lesotho, liechtenstein, luxembourg, malaysia monaco, morocco, new zealand, norway, papua new guinea, saint kitts and nevis, saint lucia, saint vincent and the grenadines, soloman islands, spain, sweden, thiland, tonga, tuvalu, united arab emirates, the unitied kingdom and Vatican city.

All the countries in the commonwealth have the Queen of England as their queen. (Canada, Australia, etc.)

An absolute monarchy is when a monarch has absolute power to do whatever they want. countries currently in this type of gov. are: brunei, oman, qatar, saudi arabia and swaziland.

1. I don't know why this is relevant to what I said. Are you even reading my words? You're just typing up random things like "Bananas". I never said Iran should require outside influence. I'm not going to argue if you're just going to throw around random sentences.

2. Once again, what are you saying? What does getting into a government building have to do with whether or not we hear and see only what we're allowed? Who cares who the journalists and witnesses are working for, they're not the only source of information.

3. You said plenty of countries have a good old fashioned monarchy and the good old fashioned monarchy is the absolute monarchy. As evidenced by your list, only a handful of countries have this type of system. Most countries have a 'modern' monarchy, which the Constitutional Monarchy.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

1. I don't know why this is relevant to what I said. Are you even reading my words? You're just typing up random things like "Bananas". I never said Iran should require outside influence. I'm not going to argue if you're just going to throw around random sentences.

2. Once again, what are you saying? What does getting into a government building have to do with whether or not we hear and see only what we're allowed? Who cares who the journalists and witnesses are working for, they're not the only source of information.

3. You said plenty of countries have a good old fashioned monarchy and the good old fashioned monarchy is the absolute monarchy. As evidenced by your list, only a handful of countries have this type of system. Most countries have a 'modern' monarchy, which the Constitutional Monarchy.

And I'm saying Mousavi is fully supported by the west... how can you not see the relevance?

Who is Mousavi and why is he supported?

"Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brooking Institution's Saban Center, describes him as an "unlikely hero" whose "longstanding association with the current system seemed to suggest that he would be a poor candidate to lead an uprising against it."

And indeed, as many have pointed out, Mousavi's newfound role is rather ironic when one considers the darker side of his political diptych. Serving as Prime Minster from 1981 to 1989, Mousavi may have had a hand in some state actions that would give many of his contemporary supporters pause, especially in the West. By Robert Baer's account, writing in Time, much evidence exists to censure Mousavi for at least some involvement in the 1983 truck-bombings in Lebanon against the US embassy and US marine barracks.

And previously, in 1981, following the Iran hostage crisis that many believe may have sunk President Jimmy Carter's re-election, Mousavi gave an interview wherein he touted his revolutionary, hard-line credentials, saying "It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution. It was after this that we discovered our true Islamic identity. After this we felt the sense that we could look western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years."

Mousavi's tenure in Islamic Revolutionary officialdom ended in 1989 when the constitution was amended to abolish the prime minister post. His premiership was characterized by clashes with then-President Ali Khamenei, who became Supreme Leader that year, as well as with Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is now one of his allies. Following his soft ousting from politics, Mousavi spent the next two decades as an artist and a teacher, during which time he apparently transformed into a moderate reformer.

The vast pro-Mousavi coalition that is now in open defiance of the government ban on protests has a diverse composition ranging from liberal students, and youth and women activists to more traditional, conservative veterans of the 1979 revolution, such as Rafsanjani."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart..._b_219739.html

You said plenty of countries have a good old fashioned monarchy and the good old fashioned monarchy is the absolute monarchy. As evidenced by your list, only a handful of countries have this type of system. Most countries have a 'modern' monarchy, which the Constitutional Monarchy.

A "modern" monarchy is just a system which is used to disguise the monarchy so the people think there is a "democracy".

[Muhaha]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

And I'm saying Mousavi is fully supported by the west... how can you not see the relevance?

Who is Mousavi and why is he supported?

"Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brooking Institution's Saban Center, describes him as an "unlikely hero" whose "longstanding association with the current system seemed to suggest that he would be a poor candidate to lead an uprising against it."

And indeed, as many have pointed out, Mousavi's newfound role is rather ironic when one considers the darker side of his political diptych. Serving as Prime Minster from 1981 to 1989, Mousavi may have had a hand in some state actions that would give many of his contemporary supporters pause, especially in the West. By Robert Baer's account, writing in Time, much evidence exists to censure Mousavi for at least some involvement in the 1983 truck-bombings in Lebanon against the US embassy and US marine barracks.

And previously, in 1981, following the Iran hostage crisis that many believe may have sunk President Jimmy Carter's re-election, Mousavi gave an interview wherein he touted his revolutionary, hard-line credentials, saying "It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution. It was after this that we discovered our true Islamic identity. After this we felt the sense that we could look western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years."

Mousavi's tenure in Islamic Revolutionary officialdom ended in 1989 when the constitution was amended to abolish the prime minister post. His premiership was characterized by clashes with then-President Ali Khamenei, who became Supreme Leader that year, as well as with Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is now one of his allies. Following his soft ousting from politics, Mousavi spent the next two decades as an artist and a teacher, during which time he apparently transformed into a moderate reformer.

The vast pro-Mousavi coalition that is now in open defiance of the government ban on protests has a diverse composition ranging from liberal students, and youth and women activists to more traditional, conservative veterans of the 1979 revolution, such as Rafsanjani."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart..._b_219739.html

This is how the conversation went:
Me - Why doesn't the C.I.A just pass out guns to the protesters?

You - What would that accomplish? The protesters have already reached their goal.

Me - What is their goal?

You - To destabilize the government of Iran and get support from the West.

Me - Isn't their goal to have Mousavi in power?

You - They can't have Mousavi in power without the West.

Me - There is a big difference between requiring Western support to get Mousavi in power and requiring Western support as an end goal in and of itself.

You - Outside support shouldn't be required for an independent and sovereign nation.

Me - Has no relevance to what I'm saying since I never said outside support should be required.

You - Mousavi is fully supported by the West.




First, you say the protectors have already achieved their goal which was to destabilize the country and get support from the West.

Then, you say they can't have Mousavi in power without the West, which now implys that you think their goal is to have Mousavi in power.

Then, you say outside support shouldn't be required for a independent and sovereign state, which leads me to believe you've reversed your previous position of "they can't get mousavi in power without the west".

Then, you say Mousavi has full support of the west, which would make your previous statement of "their goal is to get support from the west" false, since there would be no reason to protest in the streets with the goal of getting support from the west if they already had it.


EDIT:

A "modern" monarchy is just a system which is used to disguise the monarchy so the people think there is a "democracy".

Sure, my point is the majority of countries that have a system of Monarchy have this "Disguised" system rather than the "good old fashioned" kind.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

This is how the conversation went:
Me - Why doesn't the C.I.A just pass out guns to the protesters?

You - What would that accomplish? The protesters have already reached their goal.

Me - What is their goal?

You - To destabilize the government of Iran and get support from the West.

Me - Isn't their goal to have Mousavi in power?

You - They can't have Mousavi in power without the West.

Me - There is a big difference between requiring Western support to get Mousavi in power and requiring Western support as an end goal in and of itself.

You - Outside support shouldn't be required for an independent and sovereign nation.

Me - Has no relevance to what I'm saying since I never said outside support should be required.

You - Mousavi is fully supported by the West.

So you have full confidence that Mousavi's role is not affected in anyway with ties he might have made during his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair and helping free the American hostages in Lebanon... which in return for sale of the American weapons and spare-parts that Iran's army badly needed for Iran-Iraq War? I don't know, sometimes I think that the US wants Ahmedinejad in power and the whole Mousavi thing is a charade.

[Muhaha]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

So you have full confidence that Mousavi's role is not affected in anyway with ties he might have made during his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair and helping free the American hostages in Lebanon... which in return for sale of the American weapons and spare-parts that Iran's army badly needed for Iran-Iraq War? I don't know, sometimes I think that the US wants Ahmedinejad in power and the whole Mousavi thing is a charade.

I really don't know if you're being serious, it doesn't even feel like were talking with one another. This has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. We were talking about the goals of the protesters in Iran. I never mentioned any of the things you're talking about and never offered my position on Mousavi and whether or not he's supported by the West and whether or not his past has to do with anything.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

I really don't know if you're being serious, it doesn't even feel like were talking with one another. This has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. We were talking about the goals of the protesters in Iran. I never mentioned any of the things you're talking about and never offered my position on Mousavi and whether or not he's supported by the West and whether or not his past has to do with anything.

Are you that naive to believe that young people actually form political views by themselves if nobody informs them? lol