IRANIAN.COM

Bijan jan

Let us look more closely at your 'realities':

Reality 1. A Theocracy cannot be democratic. It is a contradiction in terms.

Yet the current regime's 30-year reign has been as democratic as Iran has ever been if you compare with the other regimes with this or longer periods of endurance in Iran's history. We practically invented despotism.

Reality 2- US and western civilizations are more
advanced in implementing a just and equitable social order than the
Sharia laws of the IRI or Taliban.

But we are talking about Iran not the West. Iran's system, apart from the case of Turkey, is among the best in the region. Iran is
more
advanced in implementing a just and equitable social order than most of the other countries around it. And Turkey has been ahead of Iran on most fronts since the Ottoman period.

Reality 3- US and western democracies are militarily more powerful than IRI.

They are also FAR more powerful than Afghanistan and Iraq. So why the abject failures there?

Reality 4- State of Israel is here to stay and has
the right to defend her existence.

The same thing used to be said about the Apartheid State in South Africa. Within our region, the only 'here to stay' countries have been Iran, Greece, Egypt, Russia and India.

Reality 5- US and Israel will not allow IRI to
develop Nuclear weapons, period.

How did you come to this conclusion? It cannot be based on the last 5 or so years when Iran has moved its nuclear technology ahead without hesitation. If Iran wanted to, it could quite easily develop nuclear weapons without anyone knowing how or where, rest assured. It already possesses the know-how, and you cannot bomb knowledge. Even Bush has admitted this. Why can't you?

finally: "IRI’s stance with regard to enrichment is reckless and stupid.
It bears the same responsibility in loss of lives and destruction as
the people who attack and commit the act."

This is the same argument as saying that a woman who wears a mini skirt and gets raped is equally to blame as the rapist. Not really a convincing argument now, is it? By no stretch of the imagination can an aggressor who willingly sacrifices thousands of innocent people be allowed to get away with such a crime. In international law, this is called a war crime.

Peace!

Bijan A M, Anonymos4now,

Bijan A M, Anonymos4now, jamshid, great arguments guys. People like Q unfairly and illogically accuse us of not using facts where as he/she denies the undeniable facts of 30 years of murder, imprisonment, torture, exile and oppression of Iranians living in Iran. Iran is one of the few countries in the world that does not have public opinion polls on important issues. Q is asking me to present facts regarding Iranians dislike of the regime where as he/she knows better that it is impossible in Iran to have such polls. To her/him, an official IRI approved public opinion poll is the only way to measure Iranian public opinion. She/he thinks after what happened to our country, we are gonna sit there and accept that baseless and misguided logic like dummies! Nonetheless, during the IRIs 30 years of catastrophic reign, one poll was actually done by Abbas Abdi and Ghazian on U.S Iran relations where it found most Iranians consider the U.S not an enemy and want good relations with it. The result was both Abdi and Ghazian’s imprisonment. So, just like the IRI, Q is using that tactic to make belief that the people support the IRI. The fact of the matter is, in the absence of scientific public opinion polls, there are other tools to measure people’s public opinion. When you read Iranian newspapers, magazines, websites, publications, auto biographies, when you watch Iranian TV, listen to Iranian radio, when you read Iranian books, when you read Iranian autobiographies, when you go to Iran and talk to people from all walks of life, when you talk to Iranians who just came from Iran, when you talk to Iranians outside of Iran, when you listen to some of the comments the regime officials make from time to time that has some elements of hints in them referring to people’s dissatisfaction with things, when you read neutral human rights groups publication, ..and tons of other examples, those are also public opinion measures, and that pubic opinion says that vast majority of Iranians, from different political ideologies and from different worldview backgrounds, consider the regime in Iran to be the greatest threat to world peace and a disastrous experience for Iran. And how about some facts? IRI imposes a religious dress code on women (the only country in the world) , that violates basic human rights declared in the universal declaration of human rights. The regime openly, even in its own constitution, violates religious minority rights. For example, in order to become Rahbar or president in Iran, you have to be shite. That violates basic human rights of Iranians and stands against the universal declaration of human rights. You are well aware that I can go on for days. So since the regime in Iran has violated basic human rights, what makes you think that Iranians will accept a regime that violated basic human rights? Or that Iranians are naïve? Or dumb? Or what makes you think that you guy’s confused rhetoric has any followers in Iran? How about you presenting us some “facts” on that question! Its amazing how some people have absolutely no regards or respect for truth and reality.     

Bijan jaan

That was an eloquent and excellent expose on the realities of the situation.

Anonymous Irani: Too true.

Anonymous Irani: Too true. The Islamic Republic has been founded on lies, deceit, murder and bloodshed. It's doubtful to think that the Iranian people will let the mullahs go unpunished when the time comes.

Q joon ghahr nakon….

I am not going to start an abstract and philosophical debate with you (because I don’t know how). By now you probably know where I am coming from. Just in case you don’t, let me spell it out.  Here are, in my opinion, some of the realities we need to accept and let them guide (or help guiding) our thoughts and actions:

Reality 1- A Theocracy cannot be democratic. It is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, the IRI (no matter how you slice it) cannot be a democratic state. You can criticize US and/or western democracies all you want, but, they are still democracies. You may be of the opinion that a theocratic government will provide a better social order, but you can never claim it to be democratic as it has no respect for an individual’s life or right.

Reality 2- US and western civilizations are more advanced in implementing a just and equitable social order than the Sharia laws of the IRI or Taliban. Their judiciary system is not under the control of clergy. They honor separation of church and state.

Reality 3- US and western democracies are militarily more powerful than IRI.

Reality 4- State of Israel is here to stay and has the right to defend her existence. Whether you consider it an apartheid or a democracy does not change this reality. It is my humble opinion that existence of Israel is tied to existence of human race as we know it. We can criticize any of their actions as inhumane, barbaric, etc….but, we need to accept this reality (i.e. their existence) and focus on peace. Debating until eternity whether Israel is democratic or not will have no effect on this reality.

Reality 5- US and Israel will not allow IRI to develop Nuclear weapons, period. The issue is not whether they have the moral authority to do so, or they will violate international treaties, etc…  The reality is that they cannot afford to take that risk and they have the military power to stop it.  North Korea is not a good analogue in this case.

It is in the face of these realities that I suggest IRI’s stance with regard to enrichment is reckless and stupid. It bears the same responsibility in loss of lives and destruction as the people who attack and commit the act.

I know I have been repeating myself over and over again. I do apologize for that and promise not to repeat it again.

Regards to all,

  Bijan       

hey Jamshid, exactly how do you know any of this?

How do you know that US Government is more popular for example?

Really, I'm curious.

I think Q has made great points, standing up against a gang of at least 5 extremists.

Macbeth,

1400 years ago? I can't even count that high.

LOL

Lady Macbeth

(out, out, damned spot).

Whoa, Zion! Hold tight.

So jj says this and jj says that.  In this case, yeah, jj may very well know more about public opinion OUTSIDE Iran than any person alive.  From first-hand experience.  I'm serious.  But does that mean that that opinion has more relevance than public opinion INSIDE Iran?  JJ hasn't been to Iran since forever and he knows that if he went back to Iran, his first stop after the airport would be Evin Prison.  So he CERTAINLY doesn't know as much about public opinion within Iran as he does about it without.

So...if jj has no first hand experience, how do we know that Q's views may not reflect the views of a certain sector within Iran?  How do we know? 

And as for outside of Iran, I have met quite a few Iranians in New York who have views similar to Q's.  You yourself paraphrased jj as saying it "almost" never comes up.  What does this "almost never" mean?  That it comes up among the expat community .001 percent of the time?  5 percent?  Twenty percent?  "Almost" is as flexible a word as any word can be.  So.. .

Q  "and his pals" do not walk alone.  Unless of course those expat Iranians I nret in New York are his pals too.  Who knows?  You visit New York on occasion. don't you, Q? 

So Zion, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Q's views if I were you.  And his pals. I would be more cautious.  But then again, I'm not you. Or am I?  :o)

Rosie

PS Q, I know, I know, you can defend yourself perfectly well.  But actually I'm not defending you, I am rebutting Zion. Because it's one of my favorite things to do. :o)))

PPS Jamshid, JR, I know, I know, so many people in Iran are bursting at the seams to get rid of this putrid regime completely.  But mostly through "evolution" rather than "revolution", I suspect, because I suspect Iranians in Iran have a horror of anything remotely resembling anything that sounds like it could bring more bloodshed.  And anyway, I said Q may well represent a SECTOR of public opinon in Iran..  I didn't say he's the official spokesperson for 70 million Iranians.

Oh dear me, harf and barf.  Barf and harf.  Another day at the races.

The Iranian Macbeth...

Tragic plays often end with murder. The iranian islamic tragedies have always began with murder and continued with hypocrisy and deceit.

The iranian islamic tragedy began with mass murder 1400 years ago when Omar's army marched on iranians and killed as many and converted the rest into submission by force.

The second iranian islamic tragedy began, once again, with mass murder in 1979 when men of god, after decades of screaming that shah was a murderer and prospered the cemeteries, finally got the chance to show their hands; and the very first thing that they rushed to do was murder, from the first day. And they had their explanations and excuses all lined up well in advance to spin and justify their mass murders that have continued to this day.

What else do you expect of a regime which on its first day was thinking about nothing but to murder as many as quickly as possible with their second priority being imposition of their will on the people. They indeed had not changed in 1400 years.

Saali keh nekoust az bahaarash paydaast.

Maybe

Jahanshah Javid has stated that almost no Iranian living in the free world considers any legtimicay for the regime in Iran, and that this debate almost never comes up. I tend to accept this, but then maybe he should take a look at the statemnets of Q and his pals in his website to realize what Iranian people still have to deal with every once in a while, and in his own website of all places.
I personally find this very amusing.

Re: Q

You keep comparing the US government with the IRI. You fail to realize that the US system of government is popular while the IRI's is unpopular.

If there is a refrundum today, Americans most likely would vote to keep their constitution intact. Not so in Iran.

As far as lack of evidence for what the majority Iranians think about the IRI, I think you are wrong in there too.

The only direct evidence would become apparant in a refrundum, something that the IRI would never allow. Also ask yourself, why any opposition is silenced? Why the internet is filtered? Why the media/press is not free? The answer is that the IRI fears giving these freedom to the people due to its extreme and overwhelming unpopularity. Then ask yourself why such freedoms are made avaiable by popular governments in other parts of the world.

Additionally, the gap between poor and rich is one of the worst in the world. The economy is mismanaged. Unemployment is high. Inflation is high. poverty is high. Salaries are low. There is very little entertainment allowed. People are constantly harassed in their private lives. corruption, at all levels, is high.

A normal human being would not want these for him/herself, specially knowing how rich his country is. Another reason why the IRI is extremely unpopular.

These are "undisputable facts" that, in the abscense of a refurndum, are the basis for the evidence you asked for.

You wrote, "A referendum is not a bad idea, if the people of Iran want it. A majority would have to demand it."

And how could they demand it? Besides, demand for a refrundum "pishkesh", the IRI doesn't even allow people to demand for their most basic human rights. When they do and insist on it, they get imprisoned, or killed when they go too far.

Try this yourself: Go to Iran. Start a campaign for "refrundum on removal of IRI". Start gathering signatures. Recruit hundreds of enthusiasts to join you. Where will you all end up?

Or let's say a man is justifying why he raped a woman at gun point: "Yes, I am all for women's consent (democracy), If the woman would have "demanded" me to stop raping her while she was at gun point, I would have stopped. I am all in favor of "consent", but she didn't ask it, so she must have wanted it too."

Yeah right. This is your logic. You must ponder about and reconsider your logic as it hurts yourself as well as others.

You wrote, "But IRI claims to provide these (freedom, progress, prosperity, happiness, peace, security...) and a lot of people believe them."

The IRI "claims" to provide these? I am glad you didn't say it "IS" providing them. I take that as your admittance that the IRI is NOT providing any of these.

Yes some people beleive that the IRI is providing these, but they are limited to a small percentage who have relatives/friends in postiion of power and who are direclty benefiting from the looting of Iran's riches. And no, they are not directly under IRI's payroll. But they are benefiting from the looting of Iran's riches.

What is your opinion of Rafsanjani's children? What about some other bacheh akhoonds who are living rich lives in LA or Canada? Of course! They believe that the IRI is providing them with proseperity! Why should they think otherwise?

You wrote, "If you somehow implement a Euro-American "Utopia" in the middle of Iran, a majority will reject it"

Then how come so many Iranians would want to come to Euro-American countries? Why waves after waves of even IRI supporters are moving to Euro-Americans countries? How come YOU have come to the US?

You wrote, "Whatever Iran is, it has to change gradually and internally, otherwise that change will be considered (rightfully) illegitimate"

I am glad that you are in agreement with me and admitting that the revolution of 1979 was (rightfully) illegitimate. Your own logic defeats your own ideals.

At the end of your post, you couldn't help yourself but to take a cheapshot at my family. What do you know about my family and why do you have to drag them into this?

Although you did mention that you did not intend any "offense", but let me assure you Q, there isn't any member of my family that could possibly get "offended" by one such as you.

Your level of intellect is at a level that none of them would take you seriously; however, I am certain that you could earn their pity and charity.

Re: Q

"How about a "council" of 86 "experts" who are directly elected. Would that be acceptable?"

If you are referring to the assembly of experts, then if the IRI was a democratic entity and the members of assembly of experts were directly elected, then yes, such assembly would be better fit to appoint the head of judiciary than a president or any other single person.

I have never liked the idea of the head(s) of judiciary be appointed by one person, even if that person was elected by popular vote (i.e. the president of the US).

The problem is that the assembly of experts is not "directly" elected as you claim. Members of the assembly can only be from among clerics, and even then all candidates are filtered by the Gardian Council, another undemocratic body of IRI.

But all that is irrelevant. The head of judiciary is elected by valie faghih, khamenei, another undemocratic, unpopular and illegitimate concept.

Bijan, abc and Jamshid:

I had never read Q’s responses that carefully, primarily because he writes long winded responses, and at best I had taken a glance at his writings.  I have, for the first time, realized how confused his logic is and how he uses biased and shifting morality arguments to be the judge, Jury and executioner of his intended victims; invariably the U.S. and Israel.  His hatred for the two biggest agents of “hegemony” justifies his support of the IRI.

In fact, I don’t think there can be better definitions for hegemony and illegitimacy than the IRI itself.  You might stretch the definition and call the U.S. intervention and the clash of ideologies (one imposition on another) in Vietnam and during the cold war as hegemony, but for the South Vietnamese, and fortunately for the rest of us, it was a fight for liberation from communist ideology and advancement.  

The IRI has basically laid out its business plan, and has attempted a few times before to spread its ideological supremacy, on a limited, and trial basis.  When they thought they had the opportunity, after Iran drove out the Iraqi forces, they continued the war shamelessly and promised to march on into Jerusalem, via Baghdad.  They do not have military supremacy to impose their ideological supremacy yet, but they are working on it.  The concept of martyrdom and globalization of Islam, lends an ominous aura to this hegemony, and their desire to reign supreme, like no other in history.   

The “achievements” they have made in reverse engineering decrepit and outdated Russian and Chinese weaponry and technology, has convinced their feeble minds that they can withstand the wrath of the U.S. military supremacy, with the Iranian population as their shield.  So they keep taunting and teasing, believing in their own version of shock and awe. They don’t stop to think for a moment that it took them 8 years to end the war with Iraq in status quo, but the U.S. took less than three weeks, and for all practical purposes a day, to obliterate Iraq’s military apparatus (twice).  Some falsely argue that the Iranian military has come a long way since then, but that is self deceiving because we are talking about a gap that is orders of magnitude different, and a long way does not cut it.

I would redefine the IRI as the illegitimate hegemony of ignorance (IHI). 

Jamshid and the rest

I think a body or council should elect the head of judiciary. How the members of the council are elected is a different story. We don't have to be copycats.

How about a "council" of 86 "experts" who are directly elected. Would that be acceptable?

You guys really crack me up...

I see that a few of you have now given up on the actual discussion. Aren't you the same people who not too long ago have insisted on things like:

"give a short and direct response"
"don't change the subject"
"answer my specific questions"
etc.

I'm glad that I was able to find out, and finally prove that these were just excuses. That if someone actually spends the time and jumps through all the hoops, and answers every one of your issues specifically, that at the end of the day, none of you have the slightest decency to -forget evaluating and heaven forbid admitting your own shortcomings when you clearly lose a position- but even just to agree to disagree and move on.

No. You insist that I answer you point by point with every stupid and frivolous argument (don't make me list them), and now that I have done that, you come up with new excuses to call me names. All of a sudden a point-by-point analysis is not good enough and you start making a holistic claim that I must be "self-serving," "sophist", etc.

At least I know where you stand. Let this be a lesson to any intelligent and informed person who falls into the trap of actually taking you guys seriously: Not only do you ignore facts, dismiss reasonable calls for proving what you say, but at the end, you can't even bother to read arguments, and have to resort to generic name calling.

At least I can say I have gone down to the end of this road and it's just as much BS as the beginning.

Have a nice day, all.

Nadia, why on earth do you think JJ would shut down this thread?

Why would he bother? Mouse's went up to 300 and would have gone up to 3000 if he hadn't deleted it, and this one is an academic symposium in comparison to that rigamarole.  C'mon. baby-joon. get real.  Are you daft? We've already disussed this 3000 times.  I won't say it again.  Not here, not now.  Maybe later. I am tired. Hasta luego, muchacha

Don~a Rosita la soltera

(Old Maid Rosie)

Bijan: He tries to argue the

Bijan: He tries to argue the 'Semantics' when he can't win his arguments based on facts. Most of his arguments are non sequitur, robotic, and contrived (calculated, Not spontaneous or natural).

Safstaeh=sophistry

soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sophistry
Noun
1. the practice of using arguments which seem clever but are actually false and misleading
2. pl -ries an instance of this

non se·qui·tur (nn skw-tr, -tr)
n.
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

anonymous4now: That is the

anonymous4now: That is the conclusion I reached a few month ago when I wasted my precious time debating with Q. Q is not interested in well-reasoned discussions. His mind is already made up. He is a fundamentalist! The irony is that although he claims he is anti-war, he unconciously agitates and lusts for a "just war" directed by the unswerving, "benevolent and justice-seeking" Islamic Republic on behest of the "oppressed of the world".

Q and Arrogance

Thank you Jamshid and Anonymous4now for keeping up with the philosophical discussion around hegemony or legitimacy, etc which is very well relevant to the core of the debate over IRI’s stance with regard to enrichment and/or access to Nuclear weapons.

But as a layman observer (and somewhat of a silent participant) in this debate, I have found Q to be an extremely intelligent debater with the shortcoming of too much arrogance to admit to the weakness of his arguments and when he finds himself trapped he will artfully try to redirect the debate by changing the subject. I wish I knew what the English words are for “safsateh & maghlateh”.

What is so bothersome is that Q comes out in defense of IRI’s position on the Nuclear issue to avoid conceding the weakness of his argument. Millions of lives could be at stake here but IRI adamantly insists on enrichment on Iran’s soil. don't even agree to temporary suspension until the issues are addressed diplomatically. Q comes out in support of this stance and uses N. Korea as the role model to deal with the situation. At the same time, he refuses to admit that IRI will be equally responsible if people were to lose their lives. Who the hell do you think you are to gamble with people’s life and/or their future?

Ya, I know, I am too naïve and simple minded, but I have enough common sense to know when to hold them and when to fold them.

Regards to all

Bijan

Q

Your arguments are hateful, vengeful and dominated by your limited world view.  They are self centered and narcissistic, that is why you get offended so easily, and scorn so hastily.  As I said before, your arguments border on safsateh.  You want to impose your opinion and not debate.  You would be a prime candidate to be a mullah, if you are not one already.

Re: Q

I don't agree with your regarding appointment of judiciary. I really don't care about how it is done in the Western republics. I think a body or council should elect the head of judiciary. How the members of the council are elected is a different story. We don't have to be copycats.

The rest of your post consists of unreasonable and self-serving arguments. I'll tell you why later since I have to go now.

Well, I think you misunderstand the function of the judiciary

Jamshid,

You bet, the "appointment" process for the US supreme court is, in my opinion, undemocratic. After all, the judiciary is supposed to be one of the main branches for a check and balance system.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. The Judiciary is not elected by design in a Republican system. Not here in the US, not France, not UK, not Denmark, not anywhere that can be safely called a democracy. This is because the function is too important to be left to the day's political atmosphere. If judges and national courts have to worry about "running for office" and promising things to their constituents, they would compromise their work.

You seem to favor "direct elections" as always superior to indirect ones, but this is a mistake. In reality most democracies require and have a combination for their systems. The US electroal college is even further than Iran from "direct" elections. The President here is not elected by popular vote. In many democracies either the Prime Minister or the President is appointed (usually not both).

In Iran, the role of Supreme Leader is closest to a "chief justice" since he has no proper legislative functions.

So. Does that mean that other countries should follow? Does it mean that all democratic countries should be limited to two major parties only, just because it is in the US?

No. First, the party system is entirely evolutionary and not proscribed anywhere in the US Constitution.

But let's review the line of thought that led us here. You had as one of the reasons for Iran's government being illigitimate because it has indirect elections. I have just shown you that these indirect elections are not reasons to say a system is not democratic. So those election lines are not valid reasons and you should remove them from your little list.

However, the US judiciary, although "farmaayeshi", is not in the business of abusing its citizenry. Far from it.

Actually this is very debatable. This same surpreme court is responsible for designating a black person 3/5 of a white person. The same court ruled in favor of racist and sexist rulings. In 2000 the same system unfairly gave the Presidency to George W. Bush and just lately the Clifornia supreme court overturned democracy by revoking a law that was directly adopted by over 70% of the State's voters. So, depending on who you ask, the US judiciary is very much abusing its citizenry. Not at all "far from it."

You keep telling that I or others don't speak the voice of the majority.

This is an undisputable fact, not an opinion. However, you are welcome to show me statistics to the contrary. Until you do, however, you will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for it. "Based on my experience" is of course not anything like evidence.

However, if you really stand for democracy then you should not have any problems with a refrundum in which the people of Iran can decide to keep the IRI, its constitution and its leadership, or dump it all together for something else.

Yes, I support democracy. A referendum is not a bad idea, if the people of Iran want it. A majority would have to demand it. But personally I think if even 30% of Iranians go on record supporting such a referendum it would happen and I would support it.

The point is that the IRI and its supporters will not allow such refrundum to take place since they know its results.

I'm not sure if that's true, but where is the proof that such a referendum is demanded? When a large majority of Iranians come out year after year to vote inside the system, and support its positions (like Nuclear Power, anti-Iran terrorism, etc) in international polls, why should they think that anybody other than Monarchists and the MEK are calling for this referendum?

The majority of Iranians want the same things than any other normal human being would want: freedom, progress, prosperity, peace, security, happiness and so on.

no doubt. But IRI claims to provide these and a lot of people believe them. Contrary to popular belief in California, all those people ren't and really couldn't be on the "IRI payroll". You must face the fact that not everyone interprets these values the same way as you do or you understand them.

If you somehow implement a Euro-American "Utopia" in the middle of Iran, a majority will reject it. That's an educated guess from History. Whatever Iran is, it has to change gradually and internally, otherwise that change will be considered (rightfully) illegitimate.

Of course they do. I would say that 5 percent of Iranians strongly consider the IRI as legitimate. Another 5 percent do the same, but hesitantly.

I had a good laugh at this one. You know my answer about your "observations." No offense to your family and others you have "seen."

Re: Q

You bet, the "appointment" process for the US supreme court is, in my opinion, undemocratic. After all, the judiciary is supposed to be one of the main branches for a check and balance system.

In some circles, they call it "farmaayeshi".

So. Does that mean that other countries should follow? Does it mean that all democratic countries should be limited to two major parties only, just because it is in the US?

You know the answer.

However, the US judiciary, although "farmaayeshi", is not in the business of abusing its citizenry. Far from it. Compare it to the IRI's savage judiciary system.

You keep telling that I or others don't speak the voice of the majority. Fine. I don't agree with you, but I don't want to debate it. However, if you really stand for democracy then you should not have any problems with a refrundum in which the people of Iran can decide to keep the IRI, its constitution and its leadership, or dump it all together for something else. And I don't buy the "We can't have anything better" BS either.

The point is that the IRI and its supporters will not allow such refrundum to take place since they know its results.

You wrote, "if you took a poll of Iranians do you think you would get a majority to say that Iran is suppressing women's rights..."

It depends where you take the poll. Take the poll in Ghom and Rasht and you'll get different results. But overall, the Iranian women are normal human beings who, like all other human beings, would want to have equal rights, or at least more than what the IRI gives them.

Woman rights is a pillar of Human rights and therefore it is universal and not subject to my or your opinion.

The majority of Iranians want the same things than any other normal human being would want: freedom, progress, prosperity, peace, security, happiness and so on. The IRI has failed to provide these, even at a minimal level, to Iran's citizens. And Iranians do have a great potential to possess them. Of course I am excluding those in the IRI's circle who benefit from this regime, but they are in a minority.

You wrote, "when they think of "legitimacy" Isn't it possible that some Iranians use other criteria, such as Islam or other tradition?"

Of course they do. I would say that 5 percent of Iranians strongly consider the IRI as legitimate. Another 5 percent do the same, but hesitantly. This is just base on what I have seen, but I don't think there is a large margin of error. However, this is not enough for the regime to become legitimate.

On the subject of Islam and tradition, I say this again, the IRI has hurt the standing of both among the youth. You know I am no fan of Islam, but I can tell with certainty that Islam deserves better than the IRI.

The problem is that we don't have none-hoozeye-elmieh "roohaani" reformists (not political, I am talking purely religious/philosophical) in Iran who could reclaim Islam and its interpretations from the mollahs, so that an individual like yourself and many others could have better Islamic oriented options to choose from.

jamshid: show me where the majority of the public agrees?

You have a long list of things. Some of them are correct, many are not or are simply an unsubstantiated opinion based on a narrow experience of Iranian exiles.

for all the election stuff, you discount indirect elections. That would mean we would have to say that the US Supreme Court, for example is "undemocratic" because it was not elected. Similarly the Supreme Leader of Iran was not directly elected by he was elected by people who were themselves directly or indirectly elected by the public.

on some of the other stuff, you may have factual points, but you don't show your assessment as being shared by the majority of Iranians.

For example if you took a poll of Iranians do you think you would get a majority to say that Iran is "suppressing women's rights"? Or "suppressing ethnic minorities?" I don't think you would. But you can prove me wrong by showing me the data. Just don't show me your own opinion and expect me to buy it.

Even if you are right on the majority of those things, how do we know that's what the majority of Iranians consider when they think of "legitimacy" Isn't it possible that some Iranians use other criteria, such as Islam or other tradition? Isn't it possible that people may still consider this government "legitimate enough" not to revolt against it?

In conclusion, you have a series of correct statements, some misstatemens, some tautologies and others that are heavily dependent on your assumptions. the main point is that you have to show what the majority of Iranians think, weigh and assess these things not what YOU think of these things.

Anonymous4Now

your own responses are are even more diappointing than mine!

When will you and your friends get the point that you simply can't fiat your feelings into reality. If you are used to not being talked back to by your family and others who think just like you and ask no questions, I can't help but be disappointing to you. Sorry, this is how the real world works. "Zer zadan" doesn't cut it.

The IRI is hegemonic by all and every definition and usage of the word.

We already covered 2 definitions and this has not been so. The original discussion was in the context of International relations and no defintion as yet presented covers IRI. If you want to interpret it so broadly (as is a favorite tactic of monarchists) you can't help but put almost every country in the world in that definition, espeically US, UK and Israel which are much more hegemonic.

90% of Iranians were fooled into believing they were really voting for something worthwhile, but the regime has proven to be so brutal that the majority don’t dare voice their opposition.

The "majority" has in fact "dared" to voice opposition to various extents. This is the same "majority" that stood up to Shah's dictatorship, so it's not a question of willingness. This entire thesis is your interpretation. In fact since 65%+ of the Iranians routinely participate in elections, we can conclude that they have decided the system is reformable and good enough. They have decided they don't want the kind of chaos that comes with a revolution, especially since there are many foreign wolves waiting to attack. I know you don't accept this, but that's why you are not in charge.

It's not just the absense of dissent. Its the fact that there is dissent, and is tolerated more than in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and most other countries in the region. In addition there is consistent turnout for elections. Both of these elements were absent with Iraq. So, there is no "double talk."

They did invade the U.S. embassy grounds, which is technically sovereign territory, and the U.S. had every right to attack in response, but did not.

Actually they did in their rescue attempt. But you're basically right, no argument there. Of course we would have to count all the ways US had violated Iranian rights by supporting a dictatorship and overthrowing a democracy. In the grand scheme what the US did was far worst. But I agree that they were both violations of sovereignty.

The IRI has, of course, broken all international laws by assassinating political dissidents in every Western country of the world. Justifying this behavior by saying others do it too, is lame logic.
I didn't deny that it occured. I just said it hasn't been called "terrorism" when US and USSR do the same thing (with one exception: they killed many more people compared to IRI).

Again, arguing that one wrong justifies another, is lame logic.

Not reading carefully leads to even lamer logic. What did I say was "justified" ? This was a definition of hegemony which I said frequently involves one race or ethnic group dominating the other. The examples were given to show that. I already said that if you want to argue "Persian" domination over Azeris and Kurds in Iran you would have a valid point.

What's really lame, is cheap shots without any thought.

A war monger is someone who seeks war.
Yes, history shows us who seeks war: US, UK and Israel.

The IRI has been irritating the world, breaking all international laws, engaging in provocative rhetoric and taking Iran down the path of destruction.
This is just fantasy. IRI has not "irritated the world" break "all international laws". This is just preposterous. You are repeating western propaganda without any critical thought. Israel is currently violated some 30 or 40 UN resolutions. Not many people except for US and UK have a real problem with IRI, not any more than other countries in the region. It's only the appeasement of these powers that even draggs Europe into it.

You should let go of your hate for the U.S. and Israel and not argue in favor of a joojeh fokoli (or in this case with no fokol but with tahrish) that wants to be counted at the expense of its citizenry.

You should really stick to what you know which is nothing about me and who I hate and don't hate and stop the cheap shots and insults if you want to have an intelligent conversation.

It is time for you to start sympathizing with Iranians and not the IRI.
it's time for you to mind your own business or go order around some kids who won't embarrass you by talking back to you.

You may have an argument with respect to Iraq, but had Saddam not destroyed oil fields in Iran and Kuwait, and not made the world feel insecure, by hegemony, he might still be tormenting and terrorizing Iraqis.
I have a very valid argument about Saddam being made into a destructive force through US backing and support. Just like OBL was made the same by US support against USSR. As I said, if Saddam had not been so massively aided by US and US puppets, his own population would have risen up and took care of the situation, which they in fact did in 1991, but even there US intervened to make sure they lose.

Of course the U.S. is opportunistic about protecting the welfare of its citizenry, as it should be.
"Welfare of its citizenry" my ass. You have now fallen off the deep end. There was no danger what-so-ever to US "citizenry" from Iran OR from Iraq. This had nothing to do with "welfare", it was a power play pain and simple that benefits only the wealthy few. US helped Iraq kill and gas Iranians, and now you are trying to say it was justified for "welfare of its citizenry" Do you understand anything?

And I also diasgree that it "should be" opportunistic. There is a world out there after all, it's not only US that is living on the earth. For it's own long term interests both US and Israel should stop meddling in other countries' affairs.

If the U.S. supported Iraq at one point it was because of the ridiculously threatening position Iran had taken towards the U.S.,
Oh complete BULL! What threatening position??? What was Iran going to do the US?

I can't believe you dishonor the memory of those who fought and died in defense of their country from external aggression with this horseshit nonsense.

This is entirely your opinion and you could not possibly know about the feelings of 25 million Iraqis. So, by definition, it does not matter.

Too bad for you, it is not actually "entirely my opinion." Since you seem to blind to the real world, let me show you where Iraqis have consistently rejected US occupation of their country:

71 Percent Of Iraqis Want U.S. Forces To Withdraw Within A Year (Sep. 2006)

Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein (Jan. 2007)

Poll shows 18 pct of Iraqis trust U.S. forces-BBC (Mar. 2007)

Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation (May 2007)

All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord, Study Shows (December 2007)

I really got a good laugh of the US Military spin on this particular poll:

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.

That is good news, according to a military analysis of the results. At the very least, analysts optimistically concluded, the findings indicate that Iraqis hold some "shared beliefs" that may eventually allow them to surmount the divisions that have led to a civil war.

who is more qualified to bring change to iran?

is it iranians themselves or is it zionists?

That is the question.

Thank you both Jamshid and

Thank you both Jamshid and anon-4-now. It is an exercise if futility debating with Q. Q's loyalties lie with the Islamic Republic not the Iranian people. He is probably related to some of the very prominent officials ruling elite in the IRI. That is the only explanation I can come up with for his utter lack of objectivity and realism.

Re: Q

"the question of if a government is "legitimate" is for the people of that nation to decide..."

It's been a long time since the people of Iran have decided that the IRI is illegitimate. I don't want to copy and paste my earlier long post in this thread, so here is a link:

//iranian.com/main/comment/reply/31752/73016

Read the list portion of it, and then tell me what parts do you object to. If you can't object to any of the items in the list, then you either agree that the IRI is illegitimate, or your deep attachment to your views are preventing you from agreeing.

However, if you can find one or more items in the list to which you object, then perhaps you should bring them up in order to counter the illegitimicy of the IRI.

Q

Your response is extremely disappointing, bordering on safsateh.  

The IRI is hegemonic by all and every definition and usage of the word.  You should let go of your hatred for the U.S. and Israel to begin to see the dire plight of Iranians under tyranny.  

You can’t call it both ways.  90% of Iranians were fooled into believing they were really voting for something worthwhile, but the regime has proven to be so brutal that the majority don’t dare voice their opposition.  The absence of substantial dissent does not make the regime legitimate.  If that were the case, Saddam hossein’s government was also legitimate because no Iraqi dared voice his opposition, but Khomeini tried to undermine the legitimacy of that government by trying to export his revolution into Iraq.  But here you decide to call it “promotion of ideology”.   Do you see your own double talk?

The IRI has a proxy army in Lebanon, and the Revolutionary guard is in Iraq, causing mayhem, paid for by the looted wealth of the Iranian nation.   Are these also, reclassified as “promotion of ideology”.  How biased and one sided.  

They did invade the U.S. embassy grounds, which is technically sovereign territory, and the U.S. had every right to attack in response, but did not.  

The IRI has, of course, broken all international laws by assassinating political dissidents in every Western country of the world.  Justifying this behavior by saying others do it too, is lame logic.

The Shah did not impose his ideology on Iranians, unless you want to call the emphasis the Pahlavis put on education, hegemony.  Yes, education was compulsary, and people were encouraged to learn, and reminded about, their glorious past, but no one was coerced or denied entry into schools because they could not recite the Shahnameh (Qoran under IRI) or they did not know varzeshe baastaani (namaaz under IRI).  

“For example non-Jews in Israel could be said to be under this kind of cultural hegemony, as would the French canadians in Canada and Kurds in Turkey.”

Again, arguing that one wrong justifies another, is lame logic. 

A war monger is someone who seeks war.  The IRI has been irritating the world, breaking all  international laws, engaging in provocative rhetoric and taking Iran down the path of destruction.  You should let go of your hate for the U.S. and Israel and not argue in favor of a joojeh fokoli (or in this case with no fokol but with tahrish) that wants to be counted at the expense of its citizenry.  It is time for you to start sympathizing with Iranians and not the IRI.

Shock and awe had more to do with breaking the will of the Iraqi army than the Iraqi civilians, otherwise they would not have celebrated the end of Saddam’s regime.  Here you are setting yourself up to justify your reclassification of war as terrorism.  Sending rockets over from the Gaza strip into civilian population centers is terrorism.   Sending a suicide bomber into a pizza parlor is terrorism.  Defending your civilian population against such actions, is being coerced into war.  The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and gave an ultimatum to the Taliban to turn over OBL. That is not warmongering or hegemony, it is self defense. 

You may have an argument with respect to Iraq, but had Saddam not destroyed oil fields in Iran and Kuwait, and not made the world feel insecure, by hegemony, he might still be tormenting and terrorizing Iraqis. 

“There would be no such thing as "Saddam Hussein" in our vocabulary had there not been active US support for completely unrealistic and opportunistic short-sighted reasons to keep him power artificially.” 

Do you understand what you are saying?  Of course the U.S. is opportunistic about protecting the welfare of its citizenry, as it should be.  If the U.S. supported Iraq at one point it was because of the ridiculously threatening position Iran had taken towards the U.S., with no regards for the welfare of its citizenry.  So what is your point?  

“As far as who was "better off" under Saddam, etc. Unfortunately your opinion or mine does not matter. The Iraqi's themselves, overwhelmingly reject the US invasion.”

 This is entirely your opinion and you could not possibly know about the feelings of 25 million Iraqis.  So, by definition, it does not matter. 

Legitimacy

Zion,

Since the founding of the Islamic Republic was approved by over 92% of the population, it has more legitimacy than the US Declaration of Independence. This document created a republic in which no women, no landless men, no racial mintorities and no poor people had any rights.

SO MUCH FOR YOUR "SELF EVIDENT"!!!

Self-Evident

Q:
'the question of if a government is "legitimate" is for the people of that nation to decide. Disputing by force if such a government is truly "democratic" or "democratic enough" for some other country is itself undemocratic and has no place in the UN, NATO or any other international law/treaty/understanding. That's reality.
...
We Iranians really need to get over are worshipping of all things American and Western.

This is just your opinion, not reality.'

No! It is your line of argument that is out of touch with reality, that is just rubbish. Plain rubbish!
If people had a voice to be able to decide this, the political system would already have been a democracy. The whole point of this historical struggle is for people to reach the point where they can establish a political system through which they can decide their own fate. This is why the Declaration of Independence starts this way:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.