Re: OT: Iran to USA "The Letter"

China is not a liberal democracy and won't be in our lifetimes. Because it
is emerging as a true super power there is a lot of risk for the >rest of
us.

I'm only going to address this comment, the others are absolutely opposite
to my own views, many are not based on facts they are
too biased and pro-US I'm afraid, so much Murdoch media brainwashing in
those remarks I wouldn't know where to begin in addressing them all, you
seem to believe American style liberal Democracy is the answer to all of
man's political ill's, where in reality it is merely a tool for what Donald
Rumsfeld describes as "full spectrum domination", the United States
politically is a tyrannical empire , like the British empire before it only
broader,deeper and more pervasive. China's rise will bring balance and
weaken American global hegemony, it will also present new competition
challenges for the rest of us, of course economic growth & living standards
are going to fall in Europe and North America as the monopolies of the two
regions give way to emerging powers such as China and India in many areas of
the global economy.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8988
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8982
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8980
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8983
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8984


"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gzN9g.6855$bj5.29008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Joseph Kewfi wrote:

While Iran (constitutionally a "Theocratic republic") is an interesting
mix of democracy and religion, in the end democracy is thwarted
(repressed) by the few clerics who hold constitutional veto over the
president. Prior moderates have been thwarted in many ways by the few
clerics with veto powers.


It's an Islamic Republic, those few clerics that you mention are the
very
basis of how Shia Islam operates, the Shia use clerics to interpret the
Quran much like Catholics have priests,cardinals,pope etc to interpret
the
word of god as a basis for how to live, Iran is like one big Vatican
City
but instead of Christianity, they have the Shia interpretation of Islam.

True enough, but in most democratic countries there is a clear
separation in the powers of church and state. This is most clearly
stated by the US (or at least most often).

In a world that is increasingly democratic, Shia law is at odds with the
more popular systems that people are exposed to. Women in Iran do not
agree with most of what is imposed upon them. They will hapilly be
modest, but they will also want a say in their lives.



"Republic" generally means by rule of the people. Theocratic means by
rule of the clerics or priests. You can't be both, and in Iran's case
it is clear that the theocracy rules, not the people (republic).


There is no such thing as rule by the people in any state in the world
be it
Democracy or Dictatorship, rule by the people is a fantasy. In
Democratic
states people vote for party's and politicians on the basis of campaign
pledges to carry out what the people want done, but in reality,
politicians
in Democratic states rarely if ever deliver on these promises to a large
degree, we have a phenomenon in Europe where people are so disinterested
and
disenfranchised with the Democratic process that majorities don't even
bother to vote any more, in some countries in Europe, governments have
made
voting a legal obligation because the situation with people not
bothering is
so dire, the attitude is, politicians say what they need to say to get
power
and deliver relatively nothing when they get it, so why waste time
voting.

That's a very popular stance for being mediocre. Indeed we're all angry
at our govenment leaders but we retain the right to do as we please (for
the most part) as long as it is not criminal. We have the freedom to
organize against them, but few of us do. Esp. when our standard of
living is so high.

Iran, and other Islamic nations criminalize free speech. They shut down
newspapers that disagree with them. They remove people from candidacy
that they disagree with. Remember how they reacted to the lampooning of
Mohammed in European newspapers. That is supression of free speech.



So, as Iran may modernize in many ways and has a growing health care
system and pretty good educational system (unlike sister Muslim
Pakistan), it cannot by virtue of its religious dominated constitution
behave like a true democracy.


What is a "true democracy" explain it to me?

One where the few cannot veto the decisions of the majority. One good
example is the US system where the President does have veto power over a
simple majority of the Senate and house, but where those majorities are
stronger (3/4 for the house, 2/3 for the senate IIRC), the president may
not veto new laws. As a further protection against abuse, the US
President may only serve up to two terms. Senators serve 6 terms (and I
believe "new" Senators are limited to two terms as well). Congress
(house) reps, 2 year terms. So there is a constant change of
authoritative vetos. Iran has had the same Ayatolah for 15 years and
his council overthrows any presidential power. The council is placed
there by clerics.



That the populace wishes to have more freedom of expression and behavior
is thwarted by a few powerful men abetted by "religious police" thugs
who enforce their dicates. If the people (republic) voted to allow
women to dress less conservatively, it would be repressed by one man,
the Supreme Leader Ayatolah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei (theocracy) above the
president (republic) of Iran. The current Ayatolah has been in power
for over 15 years.


How would you know what the 'populace wishes' if western media had not
implanted that idea in your head? when did you last visit Iran and speak
directly with it's people? if they all hate the leader why don't they
have
mass movements to try to overthrow him?

Do some research of your own. In the last elections in Iran those
potential representatives for change were jailed by those in power or
not allowed to run in their districts. You could read that in Iran's
own newspapers!



Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy as it sees fit to meet its
peaceful needs. However, their continuous suspicious behavior and
anti-western/anti-Israel rhetoric is what has everyone very worried
about their real objectives. Esp. in light of their huge oil reserves
which would seem to be the most ready and economical choice for energy
development. I would not object to Iran developing efficient nuclear
energy as it's my opinion that nuclear is in the end, properly
controlled, a much cleaner and safer alternative to fossil fuels. I
just don't trust a country that has religion with a complete veto over
democratic process.


I don't suppose you know that Sydney Sober, a US State Department
official
who in October 1977, "declared that the Shah's government was going to
purchase eight nuclear reactors from the US for generating electricity.
On
July 10, 1978, only seven months before the victory of the Islamic
Revolution in Iran, the final draft of the US-Iran Nuclear Energy
Agreement
was signed. The agreement was supposed to facilitate cooperation in the
field of nuclear energy and to govern the export and transfer of
equipment
and material to Iran's nuclear energy program. Iran was also to receive
American technology and help in searching for uranium deposits." FACT.

I don't know that nore dispute it. But that government was very US
friendly.


To your point about anti-Israel rhetoric, Israel has- as expert
estimates
put it between 200-400 nuclear warheads, where do you think they would
be
pointed at in the event of conflict? is Israel a good and trust worthy
international citizen? does it obey UN security council resolutions? why
do
you think the mid-east conflict is unsolvable? simply because the west
has
built Israel up to a level militarily that it is untouchable by it's
neighbours and therefore has no reason to compromise in any negotiations
about peace, because it adversaries cannot force it to do so, so it does
as
it pleases with America in it's back pocket to always defend it's
despicable
behaviours.
Go here: http://www.gwu.edu/ and type in the search box : NSSM 40
or exactly : http://www.esatclear.ie/~create-it/IN-22.pdf

I never claimed Israel had any special right at all especially as they
refuse to sign the NPT, but they, unlike Iran, are not shouting for the
"wiping out" of their neighbors. Iran's current President denies the
Holocaust and has called for the wiping out of Israel. That is why
people are so nervous about Iran's nuclear intentions when they have all
the energy they could ever need under their feet. I've never heard any
responsible Israelli politician calling for the wiping out of a whole
nation.

The number 400 is highly exagerated. US sources put it as low as 75,
and at most 200. And for clarification, unlike US and Russian cold war
weapons these are of fairly low yield, most (likely all) of them being
"tactical" battlefield weapons.

If I were Israel and surrounded by Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq and SA, I'd
want a powerful deterrent too. Yom Kippur refers.

Liberal democracies do not make war on one another.


One country with McDonalds doesn't go to war with another country with
McDonalds hey al, give it time, the Chinese will really start squeezing
Western living standards within the next twenty five years, we'll see if
your theory holds when times are tough.

China is not a liberal democracy and won't be in our lifetimes. Because
it is emerging as a true super power there is a lot of risk for the rest
of us.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.


.

Loading