Jahanshah Rashidian

To Mrx1

Do you think if George Bush family name wasn't Bush he was qualified ?! An ex-Alcohlic beleiving in direct relation with God ! Is he qualified if his family wasn't rich ?!

If you pay already many tax, it is not because US is doing war in Irak?

What is annoying is that the friendship of Bush Family and Texan petrol company with Arabi saoudian Wahabid dictators helped Taliban and AlQuida to grow in Afghanistan and leding to 11/9 happened.

Don't worry about a future Chamberlain, you have already a kind of Hitler with you.

Ah please!

obama is so unqualified that if he was not black and he did not have all the affirmative action that he got, he will be working as a cheap lawyer in Cleveland!
"Better welfare, more social justice and more civil rights"
how much more welfare and who is going to pay for it? we are all taxed out to death.You must not be living in U.S?

Finally the most annoying aspect of this Teflon candidate is his appeasing attitude towards every two bit dictator across the earth. He in a new Neville chamberlain and we saw how that turned out!

Jahanshah

I am generally in agreement on what you say about democracy, ideal states, etc. I am past the point of deciding what type of regime is ideal. The point I tried to raise is HOW. Strategy is my question. A lot of people know what the ideal state should be like. They at least have an idea. The problem generally is how to get there.

Personally, I think a sort of anarchy is the best form of government. But what I mean by that is a society where government is very small. But that means that people are generally so intellectually advanced that they do not require much hand-holding by a government. In other words, they don't need to be "governed" because they are smart enough and educated enough to figure things out on their own. A ver silly example of this is that the city does not need to post no-parking signs somewhere because people take a look and realize that it would not be best for the society to park there.

But now, the point is how do we get there? Do I go sit my old grandma down and explain that to her so that the next referendum she votes for anarchy instead of Islamic Republic? The point is strategy. How do we go from point A to point B, considering all factors involved? Otherwise if you think about it, most people have a pretty good idea of what is ideal.

People in Iran know what is good for them. But they don't follow me or MEK or Monarchists because they don't think that any of us will get them there. They may or may not be wrong but what I am saying is that strategy becomes important if one truly wishes to succeed. Otherwise just going around and announcing how things should be could be complete waste of time. 

I see you put much work into trying to do something that leads towards progress for our people. But I can't help noticing that you have almost no strategy. 

Thanks all

Thank you for your comments. Sorry for misspelling Barack's first name!

Ba sepaas

JR

Mr. Rashidian

Thanks for your input. I agree with you.

JR and Troneg

I agree with you both. Europeans do not have the same feelings about African descents as a large number of Americans do, but  the prejudice against blacks runs deeper and more violent in US, even now.

There are many obstacles for Obama in the general election, much more than JFK had, and his brother Robert might have had to face, and look what their fate was...  I personally think that this "election" was choreographed to raise people's emotions and hope, worked as a steam-hole so to speak, to let out the pressure that is building up in the US and unfortunately, at the end, the chances of a continuation of these past 8 years could be very possible. Even Americans will be proven not ready for such a step forward.

IRANdokht

Thanks

Enjoyed reading your article and replies

R.Mehdi

Thanks for your two comments.

We know, our optimal development is possible only when we have a compatible environment in which our inherent genetic potentials can get duly and optimally expressed. This is also true for any society under any political leadership.

While with the advent of state, the era of dependency, development and social coordination commenced, and so commenced the era of coordination and cooperation among people. Whatever we interpret the ideal coordinator, today, we can call it different forms and degrees of democracy. But there will never be a normal rhythm of development in democracy and social evolution without democracy.

Rapid evolution of human species is not in the genetic constitution or physical characteristics, but mostly in our social system. State or political leadership can accelerate or disturb or temporary stop the process.

The paradox is that the supporters of a regime which disturbs or stops the process of democratisation blame people for the lack of evolution to deserve such a process.

Their media, mouthpieces, apologists are at work to advise, preach, philosophise, psycho-dramatise, command and silence people to prolong the parasitic life of the process-disturber, the ruling class.

We learn from the history that ultimate democracy will be only possible without a totalitarian regime, namely in our case, the totalitarian IRI. Its demise enables us to create such environment of normal evolution, such a continuous dynamic process and not a static process. And so is the course of future evolution, we need a system that continuously strives for optimal coordination, integration and efficiency.

I think some thing in you, say: your extreme conservatism, misguides you to choose among the Shah, the IRI or any established political entity.

Ba sepaas

JR

Re: Bijanam

I agree with you that "we need to have a firm stance against extremism", but this strategy by itself is not good enough. To solve the problem permanently (or at least for a long run), one should have the courage and leadership to reach out to the other side while standing firm. This is not appeasement. Standing firm alone is like an ineffective tool that the other side can use too. Remember that the western aggression is also perceived as extremism by those whom we call extremists. Your recipe of confronting the problem is like that of Neo Cons, that is, an eye for an eye and continuation of the status quo. You cannot clean up a mess with more mess.

to Bijanam

I don't know if M. Obama will win or even if he will be democrate candidat. I think it is to american to decide.

Even if he is elected he has many constraints. I was amazed you do parallel with JFK. I hope he will be more lucky than JFK or Martin L. King and any "magic" bullet don't stop him. USA is a great democracy which has already showed his limits.

You say "as odd as it may sound". What is odd sounds to me is that you think the world and specially the middle east is peacefull today !

People are dying in Israel, Palestine, Irak, Afghanistan, Lebanon (without president) ! and if nobody stop Bush, he would like to start it also with Iran. If you think it is a peaceful area! I confirm it is odd.

The other side of Obama’s World

Before anything let me confess how much I admire and respect Mr. Obama’s intellect, his charisma, hid mastery of public speaking , his genuine love of humanity, his vision of a just society. Mr. Obama has all the characteristics of a true revolutionary and has the power to start one. BUT,

in my opinion Obama’s world will fuel spread of extremism around the globe, will lead to the rise of more and more unrest in Western Europe & middle east which in turn will lead to social and political instability. It will help resurrect (revive) the failed ideology of communism. As a result he will find himself in the middle of a chaos that could potentially set this nation back for many decades. All of this with noble, divine and humanistic intentions. Just remember that it was during JFK’s presidency that the world came closest to a Nuclear Holocaust.

Please don’t take my comments as being pro war and pro grand standing. I only believe that we need to have a firm stance against extremism. Trying to appease extremists and fascists if fatal. Promoting the failed system of communism (or any of its variations) is regressive and will set us back a century.

As odd as it may sound, I am of the opinion that Obama’s world will become less peaceful than what we now have.

With best regards

Re Obama

"Alborzi" has a good point. It is interesting how people get all upset and demand change but when it comes to electing a president, they intentionally block anybody who could make a serious change! And some of us complain that this is just happening in Iran and we complain that the reason is that the regime has brainwashed people or something like that.

I think this proves that a true democracy is only possible when people are very well educated and aware of what is going on, etc. So we see evolution at work again, where people need to come up to a level of understanding where they will allow a truly progressive leader to take charge.

That is why revolutions never work - well, it is better to say that they are fake. Because if people were much better than their leader, then they wouldn't be in a position to demand a regime change in the first place.

The world needs honest leaders

The rise of radical Islamism is a direct result of the western imperialism that has ruled the region for more than two hundred years. Let's not forget that it was the western aggression and "invasion" of the region that created the hostility in the first place. When people are invaded, robbed, cheated, and humiliated for generations, they would resort to any means to defend themselves. I'm not trying to defend radical Islam at all. All I'm saying is that what we witness in the world today is the result of a natural cause-and-effect phenomenon.

The world needs honest leaders who understand the roots of problems and are ready to solve (and not mask) them. Obama seems to be more honest and open-minded than the alternatives. So, why not giving him a chance.

As an side

You know, in your article, there was truly no need to use the word "Islamist" - whatever that means. You could have easily used the word "ignorant" or other similar words which would cover all such people instead of only the ones that use Islam as their disguise.

I point this out because, in my view, it really shows your specific sourness towards this specific branch of ignorant people and it shows your suppressed hatred for the religious group that these guys pretend to be part of (Muslims). This tends to devaluate your article because after all, it seems like another indirect jab into the sides of anybody with that belief. And of course, that shows that you feel you have been hurt by them - another victim of Islam.

Maybe you need to take responsibility for what happened. Maybe these guys hurt you, or your loved ones, but please notice that you also had something to do with it. You weren't by nature only a victim. For as long as you can't see what your role was in this, you will feel like a victim. It was all done to you - meaning you had no choice (a victim).

I say this out of goodwill for you. It's something that is evident in almost all of your writings. In some of your articles you acknowledge that attacking religious beliefs is not a productive strategy but unfortunately you then go ahead and show your suppressed hatred for Islam.

My advice to you is sit down with yourself and find out how YOU contributed to the damage that was done to you or your loved ones (DESPITE what the so-called Islamists did). Ask yourself, with the benefit of hindsight, how you could have avoided it. If you can do that, it will go a long way in rehabilitating your influence in that area. Right now, you come across as being afraid of these so-called Islamists. After all, if they had the power to hurt you, who is to say they don't have that power now? It is a legitimate fear. But if you could be more honest with yourself, you'd realize that nobody has that much power over anybody.

You want a good example of this, look at the MEK. They keep denying that they made any mistakes. They keep justifying it (giving excuses is another way of saying in fact it wasn't truly their fault - they were just victims). They keep denying that they had a role in destryoying themselves. And now they have reached a point where they see themselves as complete victims. Nothing they can do about this monster that is victimizing them. The monster keeps getting larger everyday! But if they could admit to their own role in this, they would wake up and see that the monster exists, really, only in their minds.

Best.

too intellectual too

Back in 1973, we were playing poker at Syracuse U one weekend, and at some point I had to go to bathroom, on the wall of bathroom
it said "if you voted for Nixon, you can't shit here, your ass hole is in Washington", so when I came back I brought the subject, every body was against the war,
the economy was going to hell (remember the gold standard ) and generally Nixon was not too popular, but he had just won the election in a landslide. The opposition was McGovern, a PHD, professor at Northwestern U. and WWII pilot, very popular. The guy who answered was guy from Brooklyn called Hamburger, anyway he said McGovern was too intellectual and elitist. Americans do not like the intellectuals. Obama was on Harvard debate team, thats doom and gloom for his prospects.

Chère / Cher Troneg

Je suis d'accord sur ce point avec vous. Du moins en Allemagne, pour un noir ou même un basané, c' est impossible de passer les barrière socialement étendues à réussir un tel poste. Nous avons une autre histoire en Europe et cette histoire plaît malheureusement à une grande majorité.

Malgré tout, les allemands vont adorer Obama comme le président. Du moins, comme souvent, une porte ouverte aux critères de soi pour le changement de l'histoire. Il y a toujours un peu de narcissisme en Europe, mais il a un coté compensatoire-- l'intellectualisme avancé vis a vis de celui de celui des yankees--un espoir a fleurir.

Songez un président noir au plus haut poste de pouvoir chez les yankees. Voilà une Amérique que l'on peut aimer, loin des turpitudes hypocrites et de la ferveur raciale, religieuse - trop américaine - de George W. Bush.

Pour un nombre de "sales blancs", voir un homme de couleur gagner la présidence, c'est contempler l'Amérique vaincue par l'un des ses exclus. Une Amérique presque non américaine en quelque sorte une Amérique de Bush et sa clique.

Pour les américains, c'est une fierté à leur gloire que conte Barak Obama.

Mais oublions l'histoire de l'Europe, le jour de fierté viendra aussi sur le vieux continent.

Cordialement

JR
.

just a comment

I live in France. Every body here is voting for Obama too, but with all repect I've for German and French, I dont beleive a black man or an Arabe has any chance to become President or Prime Minister in Germany, in France or anywhere in Europe !

It is easy to chose for Americans but there are too many things to do against Discrimination here in Europe.