Amir Parviz for secular monarchy

To VP On protecting rights

I agree with all three your comments in the previous post.

The point of the Constitutional essay was that you can't just add a Bill of Rights (and the American one is worth studying for various reasons).  You also have to consider additional safeguards and problems.

I plan to write an article sometime on writing a safe constitution after the IRI goes down.  No use putting that stuff here because this post has reached the bottom of the pile and wil soon disappear.  

To VP On protecting rights

I agree with all three your comments in the previous post.

The point of the Constitutional essay was that you can't just add a Bill of Rights (and the American one is worth studying for various reasons).  You also have to consider additional safeguards and problems.

I plan to write an article sometime on writing a safe constitution after the IRI goes down.  No use putting that stuff here because this post has reached the bottom of the pile and wil soon disappear.  

VPK

The mistake USA  made is to go for "Democracy" too soon. In past with Germany and Japan they dictated their government.

I agree. And the funny thing is that German and Japanese society just after world war 2 was probably ready  for democracy without American interference in making a new government. The societies of those two countries in late 1940/early 1950 where most definitely more ready for it than almost every country in the middle east now.

Dear FG

The first part of your post sounds in agreement with me. The diversion into American constitution is nice but does not change the matter. In my opinion:

• Democracy is not sufficient; you need a group of basic guarantees.
• People of ME do not seem to understand the basic rights part.
• Therefore just popular vote in ME leads to bad results.

Regarding Shah; JC and 1979. Yes Shah had lost his legitimacy and had to go. The bigger problem was JC was weak and both Russians and Iranian opposition knew. That  is very dangerous just like when JFK was president.  With  a stronger persident the right thing was to replace the Shah. He was sick; the best option was to have him abdicate in favor or RP. Meanwhile make it clear to Russians: USA is not giving them Iran. Make it clear to opposition they will get  freedom but USA will not allow a revolution.

This would have bought time and allowed RP to "take power". Then slowly but surely transition to a civil society. Begin not by releasing the MEK from jail but by restoring a multiparty system. Next allowing moderate civil and political organizations. Pass a bill of rights and really stick to it. Next stop cheating in elections and over time turn it into a democracy. A slow controlled transition like South Korea; or Chile would have worked. It was not impossible just beyond ability or competence of JC.

Common misunderstanding of democracy & majority rights

Are you familiar with DeToqueville's democracy in America?  As a 19th
century visitory he expressed admiration for American democracy but is
famous for foreseeing the danger of "tyranny of the majority.

Democracy does not mean that the majority is ALWAYS right or its will should ALWAYS prevail. That's a common misperception in the Middle East as I believe you may know.   Every individual has the "unalienable" right to life, liberty and happiness as a central concept of the Enlightenment which shaped the Constitution.  "Unalienable" means not even the majority can take away certain freedoms.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the US Constitution) is to prevent tyranny of the majority when it comes to personal rights.   In fact, these 10 amendments were added to the Consitution by Thomas Jefferson as a condition for his assistance in getting approval from enough southern states to ratify the US Constitution. 

Some protections unforseen at the time have been added since, especially the l3th, 14th and l5th amendments and those specifically guaranteeing voting rights to certain groups (women, indians, etc.) so no state could take them away.

No other constitution, including all state constitutions, has lasted more than 50 years because most were too specific which causes outdating.  The Constitution has lasted far longer than any constitution in the world partly because its vagueness and a Supreme Court ruling by John Marshall allowed for the doctrine of "implied powers" which could stretch the Constitution by exploiting that vagueness.  This meant Congress acquired the power to do meet new needs (such as regulating air traffic) without having to amend the constitution every time an unforeseen one arose.

Has an alternative interpretaton (strict interpretaton favored by Jefferson) won out, the national government would have been limited only to powers specifically granted in the Constitution.  Where would the US be today, though short-sighted Tea Party types would love the idea?

In fact, those who wrote the Constitution took one other major step to assure the majority can't easily just overwrite earlier protections.  Otherwise imagine what the religious right led by Jerry Falwell and its arrogantly named  Moral Majority might have done by amending the constitution. (All us who don't agree with Falwell, Bachman, Palin or the Governor of Texas apparently belong to an "immoral minority" by their rhetoric).

To completely ban amendments or to require unanimous approval would have made it impossible to make changes when urgently needed and created obstacles to flexibility that would have forced a new constitution eventually as the only way around it.  What the Founding Fathers did instead was to make amending the Constitution extremely difficult but possible.

How difficult?  Count the number of amendments to the Constitution.  Subtract the first l0 because they were part of the original deal.  Now subtract two more which were related to a foolish experiment that backfired.  One introduced Prohibition (of alcohol) and the other repealed Prohibition. This is a prime example of what can han happen when a powerful majority, driven by fanatics, gets its way. 

What's left is the total number of real amendments since 1789.  That's a remarkable small number.

RE: "The Islamists were
picked by Jimmy Carter and Brzezinski (to fight the Soviets)."

True in Afghanistan and it did help bring down the stagnating USSR and end the cold war.  That help was an alliance of convenenience and not an endorsement of Islamist rule or of Al Queda which did not exist them, contrary to common mythology.  Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan but a virtual nobody at the time. 

In Iran, the Shah having lost popular legitimacy was done.  Even if Jimmy Carter didn't encouragre concressions to the people, the Soviets would unquestionably armed all dissidents, both Islamists and communists parties alike--both discipined and formidable opponents who, with such arms could have brought down the Shah in any case.   Hence I don't see that the USA could have saved him no matter what. 

Afterwards, I imagine the communists, backed by Brezhnev and the Islamists would have fought it out with the latter ordinarily favored.  Instead of invading  Afghanistan, the Soviets would likely have invaded Iran instead to turn the tide, an intolerable threat to the strategic Gulf area which could have precipitated World War III.  At best the Iranians woulld have been caught in a long, bloody proxy war with the US forced to ally with the Islamists. 

How's that scenario sound?

AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ: PREMATURE DEMOCRACY

The problem wasn't simply one of giving folks a premature choice. In part,it was mainly a problem of too many neighbors using different elements of their proxies to torpedo a rival's favorite faction or in Iran's case, to torpedo a democracy which could set up an infectious example next door. 

The second problem is that Iraq, vulnerable to sectarianism, chose the same proportional representation electoral system that Europe, the Balkans and Israel uses.  It encourages sectarianism and makes extremist parties viable in a crisis.  

Without that external interference, with a plurality electoral system and with some concessions to moderate Baathists and military, things could have gone much better especially in Iraq.   In isolated Afghanistan, the warlords and the nature of domestic Islam would have posed more problems for democracy even without outside interference and regardless of electoral system chosen.

Dear BacheShirazi

I agree with you totally USA wanted to fight Soviets. The Islamists were picked by Jimmy Carter and Brzezinski. I think it was a bad call but I don't think they did it to "keep us back". That is just silly.

You are right about many people in ME wanting Sharia. I remember fully how people in 1ran in 1970s talked about Islam. How they thought it will be the salvation of our people. They were stupid but that is what they wanted.

The mistake USA  made is to go for "Democracy" too soon. In past with Germany and Japan they dictated their government. In Iraq and Afghanistan they let people chose. People who are not ready to make that choice. Hence the disastrous results.

FG

I am not a Monarchist and get in plenty of arguments with Amirparviz. In particular I do not share his beliefs about the West. I don't want do debate my statement I told you what I mean now you think whatever.

As for Democracy I think there is a basic misunderstanding. By itself all it means is rule of people. It does not mean freedom; or secularism. In fact they do not even mean free press. Majority may vote to restrict all kinds of speech and often does. Those need to get added. That is what constitutions and bill of rights are for. I personally do not like the Turkish system. I prefer a bill of rights like the one in the United State but with more rights. If you want to know see the constitution that by David Et 

//iranian.com/main/blog/david-et/constitu...

Hi, VP. As written it could only have one meaning.

Test it on a few people and you'll see.  You clarified your intent now.  I'm not so sure that is such an alternative as an "islamist democracy" however.

DOES TURKEY REALLY HAVE AN 'ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY" OR NOT?

One may as well call a Germany headed (temporarily) by the Christian Democrats a Christian democracy in that case.  So long as parties with religious names respect human rights, freedoms and election results and can be replaced at any time by totally secular parties, you have a full democracy.

An "Islamist democracy" is a contradiction in terms since it implies only Islamist parties can compete.  Is it a semi-democracy then.  Iran doesnt even have that.  The hard line mullahs don't just ban secular parties, they ban moderate Islamists from running or steal the election if the latter win. Putin's Russia offers a close resemblance to the IRI, banning some parties, and rigging votes otherwise.

Re:  "Given our history we need a strong bill of rights that guarantees a separation of religion and state."

I agree but your fellow monarchist, Amir, does not.  He looks on western secular democracies as rivals and therefore enemies by nature to the authoritarian system he prefers.   As I've said, he needs xenophobia for the same reason as the mullahs.  Both have products for sale which can;t hold a candle to their rivals hence they must taint the latter constantly.

TURKEY

Prior to Erdogan's model, the open and democratic society of the West constituted the greatest threat to Iran's mullahs, poisonous by example and therefore intolerable no matter how friendly it tried to be.  The West still remains the biggest potential military threat (mainly because Iran must treat it as an enemy to justify certain domestic measures.  Culturally, the seductive west (fashions, rock and roll, social freedoms) also poses the biggest threat to Irans IRI.

However, as a political threat Erdogan's model has become more dangerous.  It offers attractive western style freedoms, including open elections, that the mullahs can never afford to offer, along with substantial cultural freedoms.  Turkey can be part of global culture without political leaders being threaen.  Not so Iran, which requires substantial isolation though preferably not so great as now.  In these ways, it's much more seductive than the West ever can be, causing locals to ask, "Why can't we have this too?"

I'd say it took the combination of Iranian post-election protests in 2009 and the vivid new alternative Erdogan created to caused the Arab Spring Amir hates so much.

U.S and Sharia law

I think what has to be mentioned in the whole argument about if the if the U.S is supporting Islamism in the middle east or not is that a lot of the population of the middle east is supportive of Sharia law. This is an inescapable fact. Some people make it sound like the people in the middle east hate Sharia law as much as the people of Europe. And while I would love to indulge myself in this way of thinking, I know that it is far from the truth. The fact is that at the end of the day the vast majority of the people in the middle east are stupid. Iran and Turkey are the two main exceptions to this rule for various historical reasons. Just look at most Arabs when they come to the west, most of them voluntarily live very Islamic life styles. The same goes for Afghans. I don't think it's really a case of the U.S spreading Sharia law in the middle east, I think it's the case of a lot of the middle east being happy to live under Sharia law. Sure, the U.S did things like supporting  Islamists against the Soviet union in Afghanistan, but Islamists where the main opposition willing to fight the Soviet union.

Don't interpret

I meant what I said if you are not sure ask don't interpret. Nothing in what I said implied democracy cannot be secular. It is beyond me how you would make that interpretation and that is why you should ask.

What I meant is that it is possible to have a non secular democracy. What happens when people vote to have Sharia by majority. Then you need a bill of rights or something that separates church and state. America has one. I am not an expert in Europe. I think some nations like France are secular while some like Poland are not. England is in between mostly secular but does have a "Church of England".  Given our history we need a strong bill of rights that guarantees a separation of religion and state.

I do not want to leave it to majority whim. I want it to be pushed very hard right at the beginning. 

Yes, Veiled Prophet: You did say it

YOUR OWN WORDS AS COPIED AND PASTED:

"As for democracy I think it is overrated. I rather have a secular government"

So how am I to interpret the word "rather?" Does it not clearly suggest if you have democracy you can't have secular government? 

Yes or No?

DEFINITELY IMPLIED:

Iranians don't need democracy (if it's "overrated").

And what does that suggest monarchists have in mind instead?

You call that proof?

Re: There are entire books written on these subjects

And on how Hitler's concentration camps are fiction, how smoking presents no health hazard, how global warming doesn't exist.  I've covered that.

re: The USA following a policy of supporting islamists is that one you think
is a lie? 

THE LIES:  You equate support for democracy and human rights, which were lacking, with support for radical Islam. That's nonsense. 

You argue that we should try to save every dictator who overwhelmingly loses the support of his population.  That's impossible. 

The best way to attract support to radical Islamists would be to support those dictators, just as you demand.  They thrive on it.  Moderates get suppressed by your dictators, just as the mullahs do to them.

THE TRUTH: We supported the people the only real source of national sovereignty against dictators led by small and corrupt cliques.  We supported free elections.  We didn't rig subsequent democratic elections or force people to vote a given way.

We'd have preferred secular western parties but that's not our choice.  Thanks to misrule by your dictators, such a choice was unlikely immediately after they were gone (and in 1979 Iran as well).  

Our second choice would be moderate Islamists a la Turkey and that's who won.   It's a fait accompli situation your dictators created. 

Do not demand we swim against the tide and make enemies of people you want to keep oppressed.  It's like asking us to sit on a breaking tree branch at the edge of a river in which crocodiles have begun to swarm.  The best move is to get off the branch before it gives way and before the swarm of crocodiles increases a hundred fold.

RE:  you see sharia law being
imposed on one society after another after the USA intervenes.  

Misleading.  We'd prefer otherwise but  it's unrealistic--ESPECIALLY after the years of dictatorship on which extreme Islamists fled.  Note how the dictators you advocate often did more to crush real secular parties.  

Next one must ask "what kind of sharia law?"  (Miles separate Montezeri from Khamenei or Bin Laden).  Would adherence be voluntary or mandated?  Would it apply to minorities or take away all rights for women?  Not in Turkey it hasn't because, unlike Iran, sharia is voluntary. Unlike Iran advocates of policies that become too extreme can be voted out and the policies changed.  That's democracy which you'd take away.

RE: "if
you feel that supporting fundamentalists and sending countries like
Iran, Iraq, all across the board to Algeria in to Sharia systems is good
for women"

Straw man argument.  Neither I nor the Amerian government favors or "supports" fundamentalists.  That is an outright lie for which you provide no evidence and which all existing evidence contradicts.  We favor moderate Islamists who are NOT fundamentists and favor doesn't mean "support financially."  We definitely don't favor Salafist types such as Egypt's Nour Party.

Re:  spreading poverty and corruption."

That's what dictatorships with inside cliques do.

re: "interfering in civil war."

Slaughtering unarmed people isn't civil war and many nations aside from the US and western democracies find it intolerable.  That includes most Arabs and Iranians. 

If I dictator can no longer control his people except by slaughtering them, he should leave rather than claim a license to slaughter however many unarmed demonstrators it takes.   If YOUR preferred dictator should have that right, then you are a hypocrite to complain when Khamenei and the mullahs exercise the same "right."

RE: May I remind you these are all things
the USA has done.

Begging the question again.  I've shown otherwise in the examples you cite. You've already endorsed the concept of dicators killing unarmed demonstrators in droves providing it is the right dictators.  You dont even disapprove of the ruling mullahs doing it because of the deed itself but because it is directed in this case at the WRONG unarmed demonstrators by an in-crowd that has usurped positions that are "rightfully" yours.

RE: Iran, Iraq, Afghaistan, Libya, Egypt, Algeria are all following Sharia law and before US interference were not.

Iran--US didn't put the Shaw in power.  He did it himself by misrule.

Algeria--We had nothing to do with the crisis there. 

Iraq--Sharia is mainly in Shia areas under Al Mahdi army control.   We didn't support the Al Mahdi arm.  Iran did.  So how are we to blame?

Afghanistan--had Sharia long, and even more severe, before 9/ll.  After 9/ll we had no choice about invading.

Egypt--They've introduced Sharia law since the revolution.  Where?  The Brothehood's party isn't in office yet.  How do you know whether it will complete promises against compusion in Islam?  

Libya--they took sides in Libyan civil war, bombed libyan army, supplied arms and special forces to other side

I've covered that.  Khaddafi vowed mass slaughter and showed every sign of carrying out his pledge.  Having lost the mandate, he should have left.

RE: "Regression of economies, increased poverty and increased corruption"

Gosh, I thought such things were standard under the dictators you favor.  Also, some economic complications are unavoidable when people revolt against the intolerable.

FG

Please do me a favor and keep the posts short if you want me to reply. 

You imply that western democracies are not secular.  

You are doing exactly what you accused Amirparviz of doing. Putting words in my mouth. Therefore I will not bother wasting my time reading page after page of pointless accusations.

Amirparviz

You started reasonable then went off into fantasy WW3. I do not believe it simple as that. USA has absolutely no reason to go to war with Russia. If they were Turkey would not be told about it.

Do you think Americans are so stupid to give their plans away that way? If they told Turkey you bet it is a bluff. Knowing Russians will find out right away maybe scare them. But I assure you USA has no such plans.

America likes wars with weak opponents to make money not utter destruction. How is Turkey supposed to prepare for it anyway? I read somewhere what to do. Put your head between your legs and kiss your *** good bye. That is not profitable for USA or any people.

To Veiled Prophet re: democracy & provisional govt.

RE: "If Iranian people form a
viable government in exile USA will have to deal with it."

Not unless it represents most Iranians, especially those inside Iran.   The USA made that kind of mistake in Iraq and won't repeat it again.  Exiles may CLAIM to speak for them for all Iranians but claim does not make it a fact.  

Having ousted the mullahs after years of hardship,  most Iranians are not likely to run to the airport at the airport so they can cheer the Shah and his entourage of ex-aristocrats.  Your attitude comes accross as, "Move aside boys.  We can take it from here.  You've done your part.  Now we'll return to pre-1979."  

Whether you approve or not, Iranians will take steps to form their OWN government based on things they learn and experiences they don't want to repeat.  First on the list are things monarchists here already snickered at democracy, free speech and press and no Savak to replace the Basilj. 

re: "As for democracy I think it is overrated. I rather have a secular
government no matter what."

You'd "rather?"  You imply that western democracies are not secular.   Iranians want both--secular and democratic.  You can't seem to grasp that. Maybe, just maybe, they'd have accepted a ceremonial style monarchy as in England but I foresee two problems: First, they don't need it, and secondly, your views as expressed here show that it would be risky. 

Having put up with hell while you much on cookies and figs, Iranians will likely see your
proposal as tantamount to replacing a "dictator with a turban" with "a dictator with a
crown." 

People everywhere are turning on one-man dictatorships. Iranian motives for avoiding such are compounded by decades of absolute monarchy under two successive regimes.  Comparing Iranians in the early seventies with Iranians in 2011 is like comparing Russian peasants under the 19th century czars with Russians in 1990 after seven decades of Soviet rule.

I'm reminded of out-of-touch Russian aristocrats in exiles yearning for the czar or of aging Cubas who were wealthy insiders in the Batista era expecting a return of the good old days once communism falls there.  Iranian monarchists face similar odds, especially in your opposition to democracy and human rights. 

RE: "democracy" got Hamas and Hitler
elected. 

No relying on a electoral system based on proportional representation system made it possible.    The Nazis got only 8% of the vote in 1933 which would definitely get you nowhere in a plurality system (used in American democracy).  In a democratic presidential primary, George Wallace once got 24% of the vote which would be big elsewhere but not in a plurality system. 

To win in plurality based elections, you must hog the middle.  The way to do that is by appealing to as broad a spectrum of opinon as possible.   A strategy of openly taking extremist positions (as against dissembling), including sectarian ones, gets you slaughtered on election day, as extremists often complain.  This applies less in the case of smaller offices where the constitutency is often far more homogenous, as in the House of Representatives.

To understand why, read this (and ask yourself are the author's initials a coincidence) though:

//www.ce-review.org/00/17/letter17.html

Secondly, in comparing democracy with any other option (as in "Hitler built great highways" or "Mugging and such crimes were uncommon in the Societ Union") you can't just site one or more negatives and none of its positives.  That's called cheating.

RE: "A government in exile needs to
include all or most parties."

So long as the leader is a anti-democratic monarchist, right. 

RE: "But a leader must have ideas hence they
will be partisan."

And what if that leader is pro-democracy and not a monarchist?   A leader who expects to unite Iran can't appeal only to one group.  In that sense he can't be as one-sidedly partisan as the monarchists whose theories I've seen here.

FG. So where's the proof?

There are entire books written on these subjects, this was a blog not a reference llst.  Which facts do you have a problem with specificifically?  The USA following a policy of supporting islamists is that one you think is a lie?  Surely if when is legitimate logic, you see sharia law being imposed on one society after another after the USA intervenes.   "if you feel that supporting fundamentalists and sending countries like Iran, Iraq, all across the board to Algeria in to Sharia systems is good for women or that killing millions of people, selling hudreds of billions in weapons, weaking societies, supporting sides in civil wars, spreading poverty and corruption." May I remind you these are all things the USA has done.

hoping we won't notice he hasn't proven such behavior,

1) USA supported Khomeini and paid him this is documented and accepted by them, the khomeini betrayed them.

2) Iran, Iraq, Afghaistan, Libya, Egypt, Algeria are all following Sharia law and before US interference were not.

3) they took sides in Libyan civil war, bombed libyan army, supplied arms and special forces to other side

4) Regression of economies, increased poverty and increased corruption happened in all these case.

These you can go ahead and get your own proof for one by one when a news article or blog reports, they don't list references if you have a problem with accuracy tell me which ones you had trouble confirming and I will help you get the info, the article is loaded with facts.

On half truth, of course when USA was irans ally they did not support or fund the MeK, they were created by the Brits.  US Support started after the invasion of Iraq, it started with not prosecuting anyone for the Americans they killed and a desire to use them against IRI.

Proving the negative is not done anywhere here, give me an example, that is what the USA did with Iraq and WMD, that is what they are doing with Iran and Nukes, in addition to fabricating evidence in both Iran and Iraq's case.

For Iranians the USA is far worse than Hitler, reason, hitler didn't betray the king or support khomeini or support saddam and everything that entails, poverty, death, corruption, tyranny, oppression of women etc that isn't fallacy of degree those are all real consequences of the USA's policies.

Regarding technique

One important thing is that policies do not always remain the same. I will show an example say Nicaragua. You could argue that Jimmy Carter did not support Somoza. Nicaragua became Marxist.

Therefore USA supports Marxism at least in Nicaragua. One problem: it is not true and Reagan proved it. He did whatever he was able to and pushed Ortega from power. I bet he would have supported the Shah had it been on his watch.

While conspiracies do happen they do not define a policy for ever. Maybe France of 1979 is different from that of 2012. Maybe the same for USA. There is no doubt Carter was kicked out because of his policies. It helps not to ever be too sure of anything.

Problem is this is much harder said than done

Non-Partisan makes it possible to bring all sides in.  Your same point could be said about monarchists, if someone with charisma rallied the monarchist base, that would force the hand of RP to change his strategy which is waiting for a change in US Policy, he would be forced to deal with it. 

If you get a football stadium of supporters in the USA and UK each with no notice and under the theme of pre-nowrooz say in Feb and then follow up with another one in March you'll have the worlds attention as well as his and you force his hand.

Real democracy is a process and took all the countries that have it time.  It is the best of idealism, you shouldn't just bi%^$ slap it.  As for going from a real tyranny like IRI to a democracy based govt. not a chance.  You'll have a revengeful bloodbath, extremism and the opposite of democracy.  This system hurt too many people, give them a voice and they'll move towards extremist nationalist themes.  True democracy comes out of good government and years of development and institution building, not what the west wants , but says it wants it, we should all want to make our paths lead that way, problem with it right now is it will be a tool to harm iran from within.  The US doesn't even recognize russia's election or govt now.  Thats a mix of real stupidity because it reveals USA's hand and balls because it will have a response towards violence, yet the mafia running the USA doesn't care infact they are trying to figure out the most advantageous way to start war, they clearly want to start ww3 with Russia/China. 

Turkey revealed that Nato had been ordered to prepare for WW3 with Russia in 2009, but the plans were stopped in mid 2007 due to $ collapse.

Rogue state, Mad leaders, Religion is Money, all describe USA to me.   

You rely on a slew of dishonest techniques

RE: "The Views are my own. The Proveable Facts belong to everyone."

"Proveable Facts?"  So where is the proof? We should take your word it is provable?

You still confuse desired conclusions with "facts."  It's like Tea Party types I've encountered who insist A) that Obama is a muslim B) that he is a naturalized citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president. You can show them birth certificates and it makes no diffence.  

NOTICE "IF/THEN" ARGUMENTS YOU RELY ON TO SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS:

"if you feel that supporting fundamentalists and sending countries like
Iran, Iraq, all across the board to Algeria in to Sharia systems is good
for women or that killing millions of people, selling hudreds of
billions in weapons, weaking societies, supporting sides in civil wars,
spreading poverty and corruption."

TECHNIQUE: "Begging the Question" Trick

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is
committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without
proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used (Wikipedia).

Hence, an argument can even be logical and its conclusion valid yet incorrect.  Observe the stated "facts" Amir uses above--and elsewhere- to support
his conclusions.  Accept those facts and you must accept Amir's conclusions.  Notice how he opens by saying "If you feel that," then offers us a series of behavior everyone would agree with, hoping we won't notice he hasn't proven such behavior, and thereby attempts to sucker us in to his desired conclusion.

Amir tells us his premises are either "proven" or "provable" but hopes we won't demand proof.  The regime's apologists do exactly the same thing.  

TECHNIQUE: "Straw Man" argument.

You deliberately assign to a given party either deplorable actions he never took or ludicrous positions he never held or which you've distorted.  You then attack him for those actions or positions.  Hence you attack a "straw man" rather than the real thing. 

TECHNIQUE: Using questionable "evidence" as proof.

Here in Arizona (land of crackpots) I've run into a Hitler admirer who insists "there were no concentration camps" and "the Nazis were framed."   He always recommends books by obscure "historians" popular on right wing internet sites.  Recall how tobacco companies scientists "proved that  tobacco doesn't hurt you."   Coal & oil companies (in which the Koch Brothers who finance the Tea Party have substantial investments) prove to Tea Party/Fox News zombies that "global warming is a fiction" even if 98% of scientists involved with climate say differently.  

Nothing can be proven absolutely not even the law of gravity which must be revised the day someone drops a pencil and it stays in the air.  But one can prove or disprove most things beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

TECHNIQUE: Demand the Accused "Prove the Negative" or else.

All conspiracy theorists and disinformation experts rely on this one.  You accuse someone of heinous behavior. If the accused denies it, you demand he do what is impossible--prove the negative. 

The Soviets had a whole department dedicated to spreading disinformation among the poor and illiterate.   For example, in Guatemala they claimed, "Rich Americans are kidnapping children in Central America and eating them as   a gourmet treat."   The story was wildly believed and no denials the USA could make worked.  That's why they'd do it.   The mullahs do the same thing.  So does Amir.

TECHNIQUE: Half truth

The propagandist supplies actual facts that can be proven and uses them to support the desired conclusion.  However, he leaves out provable facts which, if supplied, could lead to a a totally different conclusion.  The omission is essential. Often a given behavior actually IS fact, but there can be alternate interpretations as to why they behavior occurred.  The propagandist choses the desired interpretation.

Consider Amir's charges that the USA has "supported" the MKO.  Aside from two other problems--motivation (why would an anti-communist West want a commuinistic organization to rule Iran in the midst of the Cold War), Amir expects us to conclude--on his say so--that the US at the same time supported extreme Islamists seeking to take over Iran.   It's like throwing as many charges as possible--however inconsistent--at western democracy and hoping that at least one "sticks."  

The half-truth is his MKO argument, assuming any aid were rendered at all, stems from consciously leaving out two things which might lead to different conclusions: "When was such aid rendered?" and "For What Purpose?"

If the US assisted the MKO for a period after the the Islamic Republic's holding of American hostages, that woud make a difference in interpreting its real motives (thereby not supporting Amir's DESIRED conclusions.  Secondly, if (and I stress that "if") the US and the MKO are presently cooperating in an alliance of convenience to obtain information of secret plans or bases of an aggressive Cold War enemy, that is not identical in any way to what Amir alleges--supporting the MKO's ideology or aiding it in achieving power. 

To argue as much is equivalent to arguing that the "real purpose" of the alliance with Stalin against a common enemy in World War II was to support communism in Russia and all Stalin's policies there.

We see this trick constantly.  Even where money or assistance if provided to a specific party, one must always consider the context.  Thus, Amir converts a fact (the French provided free transport to Khomeini when he returned home) to "proof" that the French supported what was already a fait accompli, the 1979 revoluton.  Now that's dishonest.   Perhaps with no other option, the French hoped to get on Khoumeini's good side since there was nothing they could do to stop him anyway.

Similarly, US deals with Stalin over Eastern Europe "proves" the USA wanted Soviets to take over there, a theory which ignores the fact that we were already faced with a fait acompli on the ground and about which we could do nothing.  

Thus, it's EASY to take a fact and use if dishonestly to support a desired conclusion.

ONE MORE TECHNIQUE: THE FALLACY OF DEGREE

It may be the most common of all: the fallacy of degree (black or white fallacy). When any criticism is made of the ruling mullahs, they use this one to argue "We're no different than you."

For example, note how the regime compares the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations with how the regime treats protestors (rape, murder, years of imprisonment, beatings, attacks on relatives, rigged, arrests of journalists and human rights spokesmen.   Common sense sas there is a difference.

Similarly radical feminists would point to this or that injustice in the USA to argue "Our treatment of women is as bad as anyone."   Recall how--during the Cold War, the far left, much like Amir, would argue western democracies were "as bad as Hitler and Stalin." 

If those feminists knew more about burkas and driving restrictions, and if those leftists knew more about the gulags, purges, the deliberate famine in the early thirties or the treatment of surviving Soviet prisoners who returned home after WWII, they wouldn't talk such nonsense.

Amirparviz

People must move with or without United States. If Iranian people form a viable government in exile USA will have to deal with it. Waiting just means IRI and business as usual goes on with more possibility of war.

As for democracy I think it is overrated. I rather have a secular government no matter what. Remember "democracy" got Hamas and Hitler elected.  Regarding non partisan I don't know if that means anything.

Why should a leader be non partisan? A government in exile needs to include all or most parties. But a leader must have ideas hence they will be partisan. They may avoid tough decisions for now but it will be there one way or another.

Of the 5 Main Groups in Iran Monarchists are the most Democratic

We have Clergy, democracy my a$$, Commies/Workforce democracy helps the evil wealthy minority, the Mek mix of workers/clergy democracy is only acceptable if we always win.  Republican, talk of democracy but just want a leader that regularly changes and is super powerful/ a revolving dictatorhip that is above the law like mossadegh, Monarchy/it has to go hand in hand with development and not at the expense of development. And No Group can alter the US policy alone.

Back to the main point of this article, this is the 7th year the US congress has appropriated $200 million dollars to overthrow khamenei, (not including MeK which is done off the balance sheet since they are terrorists) None of that money has gone to help any one I have heard of within the democratic opposition to the regime.  This has gone to elements within Iran, who are part of the regime not its true opposition.  This shows they are on the wrong path and following the interests of their own multinationals above the good of Iranians. 

Somehow America needs to be forced to change of direction and until Iranians can not create a NonPartisan viable united opposition with roots in Iran and based on the future they have no hope of changing that.  Even with this changing US policy is not guaranteed, it needs some good luck even not just great approach, but for now we are guaranteed to be made up of just slogans and unable to impact the US.  See how tough it is, supporting Iranian leaders to come outside, for them to be charismatic, for them to be non partizan and for them work for total change.  Money is not the only issue.  That is an extremly difficult task.    

Amirparviz

You do not need to go into more detail on my behalf. I get what you say and agree. Yes there was some degree of political freedom but not much. I see no point debating how much; really does not matter.

There was a great deal of social and business freedom and that was good enough for me. I wrote very critical posts about Shah. But I still supported him and opposed the revolution. To me the good outweighed the bad by a wide margin. 

If you read my other post I am much more critical of the opposition. It really got to whether we needed a change. I say we did not. Shah was more than good; he was great. What bugged me is the unconditional praises of him. But if you want to be fair so will I.

I would add to my response to "No political freedom nonsense"

Regardless of ideologies that view is not sincere, simply because there was a little.  The only view point that can harbour such a statement is not a monarchist, but an anti-monarchist, communist, republican etc with an agenda because the comment is clearly disingenuous.

Obviously there was some political freedom, for it to be limited

I said it was limited!  Less than in developed countries, yet I disagree there was no poltical freedom.

At the same time compare political freedom in iran with, syria, kuwait, saudi arabia, iraq, turkey, afghanistan, pakistan, USSR.  Look at all countries within 500 miles of Iran and how much more developed Irans political process was and with a straight face tell me there was no political freedom!  Or that they were better off politically. 

I would say that while it was limited politically it was also #1 politically for its neighbourhood, not #2.  As in above all the rest.

This is talking about the past and not the blog, I just had to respond to the No Political Freedom comment as I felt it was way off.

blog software stopped me from adding points/editing

What I am saying is lack of political freedom is no reason by the people
of Iran to betray the Shah. In terms of their freedom, human rights,
peace, development, education, womens rights and a whole host of other
important issues Iran was better off than all of the middle east and
North Africa with the Shah, than without.  Seeing how neo-colonial
powers are actively meddling/interfering with the sovereignty of other
countries through the democratic process you need to have a response to
that reality for an iranian citizen like myself living in exile.  I have
no illusion of where iran was at politically and all the limitations, I
commend the shah's team for what they accomplished for Iranians
starting off where they did, with what they had (9% literacy, 85th
gdp).  It is the accomplishments of the pahlavi's for Iranians that
causes me to see them as angels and their opposition who provided the
people of iran with far far worse and mostly disingenuous.  You both
have to answer to all the people of iran on this as well as argue the
points in my article if you disagree with their truth.  Both of you have
pursued attacks directly on me, which supports my article and does not
undermine its truth one bit.

After reading the article I have written above and my responses to both
of you my hallucination is far more people respect me and my
explanations not less.  As a majority of people can see and understand
the truth behind what i am saying I hope you will come to appreciate the
article too.  Again I'm not disputing limited political freedom in Iran
pre 79.  Not the issue at all.  In fact by not having either of you an
intelligent response to the article it is obvious that this drum beat
among iranian intellectuals and humanitarians of various ideologies will
only grow louder with time. Personally I welcome it, because Iranians
will suffer even worse and see their human rights intentionally abused
even more if they do not learn the important lessons and truths of the
article.

Glad to hear

that you agree there was no political freedom. Yes I agree it was not a reason for revolution. See my post here about it:

//iranian.com/main/2011/dec/khomeini-isla...

I don't dispute that political freedom was limited with Shah

What I am saying is lack of political freedom is no reason by the people of Iran to betray the Shah. In terms of their freedom, human rights, peace, development, education, womens rights and a whole host of other important issues Iran was better off than all of the middle east and North Africa with the Shah, than with out.  Seeing how neo-colonial powers are actively meddling/interfering with the sovereignty of other countries through the democratic process you need to have a response to that reality for an iranian citizen like myself living in exile.  I have no illusion of where iran was at politically, I commed the shah's team for hat they accomplished for Iranians startig off where they did, with what they had (9% literacy, 85th gdp).  It is the accomplishments of the pahlavi's for Iranians that causes me to see them as angels and their opposition who provided the people of iran with far far worse as disingenuous.  You both have to answer to all the people of iran on this as well as argue the points in my article if you disagree with their truth.  Both of you have pursued attacks directly on me, which supports my article and does not undermine its truth one bit.

After reading the article I have written above and my responses my hallucination is far more people respect me and my explanations not less.  As a majority of people can see and understand the truth behind what i am saying I hope you will come to appreciate the article too.  Again no disputing limited political freedom in Iran pre 79.  Not the issue at all.

Amirparviz rethoric

Is to blame any and all but never the Shah or Pahlavi. Reality is many were at fault. America; people of Iran and most of all Shah. But Amirparviz has an ideological blind spot. No blame goes to the Shah.

When I read his claim that Hoveyda was "democratically elected" I give up. Anyone who really thinks that needs a reality check. My parents Monarchists to the core knew the elections were rigged. My father again a Monarchist refused to join the sham Rastakhiz party. Who is he kidding; I mean we are not that stupid. Oh yes it is all America's fault. Shah was an angel with no faults: only in his mind and those of a handful. The BS about democracy under Shah is an insult to intelligence of a 6 year kid.

Yes we had social freedom but politically it was a joke. Provable my foot! Yes proof by repetition of the same nonsense right no problem.

The Views are my own. The Proveable Facts belong to everyone.

I'm not too sure my views speak for most monarchists.  I feel there are misunderstandings of me and wish to clarify and give the reader and FG my own input on the various ideas you addressed. I feel  Many individuals who do not share my ideals would agree with my article and its observations. 

1.  The article was different from the interpretations made about it, it was clearly about the hypocrisy of the USA against humanity and Iranians.

2. I don't make any accusations in the article, there are provable facts that the USA and UK funded Khomeini, wire transfers from $150 million a time, totaling billions of dollars. This is true for muslim brotherhood and all the other extremist MeK style organizations to the tune of tens of billions.

3.  The central thesis and conclusion is based on an overall observation of what the USA is doing, its actions beyond what it says, if you feel that supporting fundamentalists and sending countries like Iran, Iraq, all across the board to Algeria in to Sharia systems is good for women or that killing millions of people, selling hudreds of billions in weapons, weaking societies, supporting sides in civil wars, spreading poverty and corruption are not "A Desire by the USA to Ruin Lives" then you have every right to beiieve the articles point of view is a lie and propaganda.  But please debate the point, don't just disregard the proveable facts.

4. There is no contradiction in my view. The USA supported IRI extremists and due to their nuclear ambitions wants to remove them for even worse extremists, this may require an invasion of Iran and is supported by the fact that the top conservative leadership in the USA openly wants to delist an active terorist organization so it can fund it, I'm referring to the MeK, so this does not contradict the theme, which is ruining the lives of iranians.  Iranians Human rights means nothing to the USA in this case.

5. Western Media acts towards one goal and is not balanced.  It "Manufactures Dissent" acts like the propaganda department of an invading army with the aim of creating worse, in irans case regression from unprecedented progress, human rights and freedom during the pahlavi era in Iran.  What women and people generally lost is immense.

6. My ideal involves the USA/UK/Nato not acting militaristically or neo-colonialistically against the less developed societies in the world.

7. The dictatorship ploy used by the USA needs to be better understood by democratically minded individuals so they are not used as tools to get the job of done of neo-colonialist policies and then discarded just as they have been everywhere else in every other case.

8. I agree with your last sentence, under these circumstances and conditions unless the USA as the greatest power in the world, unchallengeable by anyone changes its policy or somehow declines as a power for something else, some things will never come back, no matter how good or progressive they proved to be for their societies freedom.

Amir's rhetoric shows the true face of monarchists

Central thesis: By failing to save dictators who had lost the support of entire populations, the USA and the West acted like imperialists. 

Here's another strange contradiction: Amir accuses the USA of promoting extreme Islamist parties yet he has often has accused American conservatives of plotting invasion of Iran to oust the mullahs.    

Amir's rhetoric resembles the stuff we hear from the mullahs and Ahmadinejad.  Read his headline again.  If that isn't dishonest, demogogic and right out of Goebbel's Big Lie Handbook, what is? 

Assad, Khaddafi, Mubarek, etc.,  ALSO blamed all popular discontent on foreigners knowing that people normally enjoy corruption, nepotist, secret police, rigged elections, censorship etc.   We all know what happens to people when regimes adopt such a theory.  Since Amir accepts the first tactic as legitimate, you can draw the logical conclusion.

When Amir implies:  "The West causes rulers to be unpopular" you know he has 1979 in mind and draws parallels with today's Arab Spring.  But did the West make the Shah unpopular?  Or was the latter on the way down for DOMESTIC reasons and the West's "guilt" consisted merely of recognizing where popular sentiment and failing to intervene as a consequence?  Had we done as Amir prefers, wouldn't it have been guilty of acting (I hate to say this) ...imperialistically?

Another Amir theory: The American government controls how Arabs vote.  The CIA has a million hypnosis machines to program voters in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.   Despite everything that has happened since September 11, 2001, the CIA programmers favor Islamist parties--moderate or otherwise--over secular ones.  Otherwise no one would vote for them.

Amir's 1979 Iran Thesis is replicated in his Arab Spring Theory.  American spies caused people to become discontented with Arab rulers since their was no natural reason to feel so otherwise. When the great mass of people no longer wanted specific dicators, it was the ("anti-imperialist") duty of the USA and the West to save their butts. 

A TIP FOR AMIR: Avoid misrule, nepotism, corruption, secret police, economic incompetence etc.  Domestic reasons, not foreign intrigue--are central to the loss of popular legitimacy.   

Amir can't distinguish personal belief from FACT.  He implies there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Islamist parties of Erdogan's sort and those of Al Queda, the Salafists or Iran's ruling mullahs.  In logic, that's called the fallacy of degree (black-and-white fallacy). Tell that to Iranians.  They'd swap governments and real heads of state with Turkey in a heartbeat even though Turkey's president heads an Islamist Party.  

Amir suggests Arabs still have only two choices: A secular dictator or an extreme Islamist one.  He seems unaware that a more palatable alternative for Arabs has arisen in Turkey.  So this champion of anti-imperialism demands of the the West, "Force the Arabs to restore secular dictators."

That hints of the kind of monarchy he wants for Iranians.  So does his blistering attacks on western secular democracies as an alternative model.  A third hint comes in his constant promotion of rabid xenophobia.  Those seeking to distract the masses while creating a new mafia or privileged class always do so.  Amir's secular monarchy would adopt the mulahs' annual "Great Satan" celebrations wholesale.

Again I suggest you glance at his heading above.  Like the mullahs, Amir is a tad out of step with most Iranians.  Patriotism binds a people together without relying on xenophobia, extreme nationalism isolates people the better to control them.

Iranians want secular democracy--not a return to pre-1979--after 30 years of mullah rule.  Arabs still confuse secular democracy (meaning religiously neutral governments) with anti-religious government.  For them a move from secular dictatorship to a democracy with open elections and in which no parties are banned ( not democratic democratic Islamists, not extreme Islamists, not communists, etc.) is a positive change. 

In Amir's ideal world, the Arabs should go back to their pre-Arab Spring dictators, the Iranians to their pre-1979 government and the Russians to their czars.

Sorry, Amir.  Like it or not, some things are gone for good.