MONARCHY

Didn't I predict that

DK,

I told you he is going to call you mental.

I am a genius.

The only thing I forgot he likes to quote things as well from dictionary, Wikipedia and other sources.

He pretends he is an educator, and that might be true since he is IRI supporter.

Many IRI supporters teach higher education here in USA.

YT, is an IRI supporter and true believer of IRI.

Kadivar

Mr. Kadivar

seems to me you are very familiar with every and all PERSONALITY DISORDER medications. Wonder why???

FYI //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
Now go play with you dolls
have fun

Dear Mr. DK,

I highly recommend not to get in to exchange with YT, Q, Anonym 7 (he changes name) or the other Ajam (he changes name)I actually think they are all the same.

These people are IRI supporters, and they use bullying, intimidating and scare tactics.

They will manipulate your words and then start calling you names:

Like you have no education
you are mental or crazy

IRI is out and will go including their supporters.

BWY, YT is a It.

YT Touche ? ;0)

Please Consult Your Dictionary or Prosac Pills and find a suitable answer to your own Paranoia ...

You hardly understood my first post since you were offended by being called a "Republican" that is a supporter of a Presidential Republic as you have just repeated the definition in the Webster Dictionary. So Why do you feel insulted.

Yes Your Reaction is SISSY Like. You just proved my Point. I did not claim that a Presidential Republic was not Democratic or was run by a President and Not Monarch did I ?

I simply Said that a Constitutional Monarchy WAS ALSO A DEMOCRACY. The King REIGNS but does NOT RULE.

Or Maybe you think that Great Britain or Belgium are TOTALITARIAN STATES ?

Indeed We do not understand one another ! I think we can leave it there. Me with "My Foot in My Mouth" like you say and You with your Prosac Pills unless you prefer Xanax ?

Good Day Sir,  Madam or Thing YT ! 

LG - I have to diagree

Dear laleh,

I completely disagree with U:

"Mullahs fear mass uprising in Iran so much that Khamenei‘s standing order is to silence every opposing voice immediately before it spreads. Besides, IRI would never allow a free referendum in Iran. "

So what about 1998, student uprising or the mass strike by the labour union (bus drivers) in 2003-2004.

Iranian people can't match the level of brutality and violence that IRI regime will be exercised upon them.

The IRI regime is a fascist, brutal, savage dictatorial regime that will kill and destroy any opposition by any means.

Why not use the Ghandi or Nelson Mandela or Ken Saruviva or many more revolutionaries who sacrificed but did not succumb to brutality and violence.

If you answer hate with hate you will get hate.

If you answer hate with peace, you'll get peace.

It is 21 century, let us use 21st century means and ideology to battle a regime that is in 15th century.

Let us use media, the world in our advantage.

Iranian people have the whole world on their side, IRI has only its supporters.

If we together mobilize and use all the media technology and use the means of peaceful negotiation and ask for a internationally supervise Referendum we will win.

We can not become them, they will label us as anarchist and anti revolutionary and justify their killings.

No more Iranian is allowed to die or suffer.

Iran’s Oil

“2. What is your solution for Shah, Mosaddeq or anyone else in the 50s regarding oil? What is your solution to a fair oil deal when your own country did not have even the minimum technical knowledge or the equipment to extract oil, or refine it, or ships to export it, or to do anything major with that oil?”

I fully support Mosaddeq’s actions to nationalize the oil industry. If he had been given the opportunity, he would have put the profits to good use to benefit our nation.

Let's see

LG said:

At that precise moment in the history of our nation, my suggestion to the Shah would have been to allow Mosaddeq to establish a free, democratic society governed by the rule of law: A Constitutional Monarchy. That was Mosaddeq’s dream…

Mosaddeq was surrounded by Tudeh party member, not becuase they liked him but because they shared with him their objective of deposing the shah.

This was as true then as it was later by initial support of khomeini by mojahedin (rajavi advised his supporters to vote FOR the islamic republic). Only to turn to fierce anti-IRI when they lost the game of struggle for power (not for iran).

Same could have happened with Mosaddegh vs. Tudeh; except that (1) Mosaddegh was not as popular or well-followed as khomeini was, and (2) Tudeh was equally well-followed (if not more) as Mojahedin were in 1979.

Some people call the shah coward due to his leaving of the country in 1979. What would we be saying had mossadegh remained and Tudeh had gotten the upper hand. We were after all a lousy coup away from becoming a soviet spin-off or turning into an afghanistan-like face-off between east and west. Would we be cursing the shah today had he left mosaddegh to do whatever he wanted to with a weak government who was going around begging for $300M with nobody willing to provide him with his request, leading iran into another Turkamenistan or afghanistan?

Peaceful Transition of Power?

“Why blood and revolution? This is what the Ahmadinejad and all IRI supporters want.”

Mullahs fear mass uprising in Iran so much that Khamenei‘s standing order is to silence every opposing voice immediately before it spreads. Besides, IRI would never allow a free referendum in Iran.

IRI is a dictatorship, a government that rules by the sword. It must be banished by the sword. I take no pleasure in saying so… A peaceful transition of power is my dream for Iran. However, the reality on the ground contradicts this dream.

The Love Affair with Freedom

“1. What is YOUR solution for Shah, Mosaddeq or anyone else in the 50s, to run the country, to modernize it, handle the powerful foreign and capable domestic forces that oppose you, deal with an illiterate population that didn't even know the meaning of the word democracy, prevent corruption among a historically corrupt people, and at the same time not resort to dictatorial methods?”

At that precise moment in the history of our nation, my suggestion to the Shah would have been to allow Mosaddeq to establish a free, democratic society governed by the rule of law: A Constitutional Monarchy. That was Mosaddeq’s dream…

When the citizens of a society have outlets to express a healthy dose of political dissent, they will not resort to armed uprising.

The seeds of opposition to dictatorships have always been sown by intellectuals who then spread their ideology amongst the illiterate citizens. This minority faction of every society has spearheaded uprisings and revolutions in this fashion throughout the history of mankind. Intellectuals' love affair with democracy, freedom, and justice is as old as the written history.

The Shah similar to any other dictator never learned this simple historical lesson and instead chose to pick a fight with the wrong crowd.

REAL accountable opinions....SISSY about insults

Mr. Kadivar
You really have a colorful language, or is it your logic that lacks substance? I am gonna go on a limb by saying all of the above.

Once more, either read my comments thoroughly, so you can label me properly, or do not bother putting your foot in your mouth (so to speak). I do not post here so you can have a vent for your political frustrations and preach your outdated and backward system of government. And when faced with opposition, or opposite point of view simply go on a rant just like a little child.

With that said sir, AGAIN I do not recall making any reference to Federal Republic, or United States of Iran, enlighten me please.

and NO sir, I am not sissy about insults, I only refuse to stoop to level of you and kinds of you. And if you believe that [Registering] in this site and having a photo up will make me REAL person, thanks but no thanks, I rather be who I am than be considered your brand of HUMAN being and REAL person.

Shazdeh Kadivar, thanks for describing the government model in United States of America, however allow me to to help you to UNDERSTAND meaning or the word REPUBLIC.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines REPUBLIC as:

French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public
(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Now what were you saying?????
have a great day

Dear Ms. Gillani

I felt in your writing your are becoming frustrated or may be that is your passion. So let me clarify this with you, you are saying instead of referendum a bloody revolution:
"Although I have expressed my opinion on this topic before in passing, I will reply to your question loudly and clearly this time:

The demise of mullahs is only possible through a bloody revolution. The Shi'a ideology demands nothing less! The nature of our enemy (radical religious right) settles for nothing less! Mullahs and their flock will relinquish power not even to Imam Mehdi if he appears at the doorsteps of Khamenei today! They will burn him alive at the hanging gallows… "

Why blood and revolution? This is what the Ahmadinejad and all IRI supporters want.

They will win in the bloody revolution, since they will kill anything that moves, they don't give a rat ass, or value human rights.

Why not have an elite group selected from EU and UN body conduct a wide televised referendum inside Iran? That will save many young and bright minded life.

I rather have a referendum than a bloody revolution.

I rather let the people choose their destiny and fate through peaceful means.

I hate anymore mothers and fathers suffer, and i hate to see Iranian getting hurt anymore.

ASnd no more Pahlavi or MKO, let the people decide the type of the governmnet and system they want first and then we let candidates to register.

BUT NO to Pahlavi and MKO.

What do ou think? Or maybe I misunderstood you?

DK.

Good answer. I underestimated the abilities of the grand ayatollah and his fatwas. I suppose you are right. Killing is always hardest the first time, and he was well past that point by the end of his first week after his devolution. There is not much difference between killing 500,000 that he killed (in war + in prisons) and 60% x 15 million (= 9 million eligible voters then). Or he could have prolonged war a bit more and sent them to the front.

Come on M.D. don't deceive yourself.

You cannot lie to me; you cannot lie to other iranians; you can only lie to yourself.

I am in the mood today to examine your comment:

Let's see:

1. No Voter could have ever vote so directly fior Monarchy.The question which was supposed to be answered was:
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC; YES/NO
any other answer and remark would have been disqualified.

You are actually right here. What I meant was a majority NO vote leading to return of the shah (in theory, we know in practice it did not happen).

I think Imam Khomaini(r) was a man who loved Iran and Iranians.

Is that why he said: if only one [iranian?] remains alive, it would be enough for iran.
Is that why he said Persian Gulf is Islamic Gulf?
Is that why he murdered, god knows how many, up to 40,000 iranian youth in prisons?
Is that why he prolonged war with saddam?
Is that why he demonized ALL iranian kings who contributed to existence of iran?
Is that why he demonized reza shah without whom khouzestan had practically separated (remember sheikh khaza'al), Mazanderan had declared a Bolshevik government and Azarbayajan was in turmoil?
Is that why he screamed for freedom of palestine while oppressing iranians?
Is that why he focused on exporting his devolution to arab countries?
Is that why he forced iranian women to wear hejab and did not consider them worthy of self-decision-making?
...
Maybe you meant that he was a a true Moslim, or maybe a true Pan-arab, or a true Pan-islam? I would buy that, but an iranian? He was as much of an iranian as saddam was -- both killed an equal number of iranians. Wait a minute: I take that back: Khomeini killed more iranians than saddam did. Saddam only killed iranians in war. Khomeini killed iranians in prolonged war AND in prisons, whoever opposed his rule.

By the way: He was the most competent Mullah in the Islamic World.

Is that why he was ayatollah'ed only to prevent his imprisonment and execution for treason?
Is that why he considers flirting with infant girls permissible in islam [see his tahrir-ol-masael]. But, hey, for the islam that we have seen in the past 30 years (nothing but murder and looting) I cannot argue that he was the most competent in those traits.

Constitutional MONARCHY Yes/NO?
In case that the majority had decided for Monarchy, and if then, a come back for his majesty the shahanshah Aryamehr would have been as much impossible as a war Iranians against Iranians possible.

You evaded the question by Maghlate? Would you prescribe a cold medicine for someone with cancer M.D.?

The question was: what if the people had asked for the return of the monarchy as it was? Return of the shah as Monarch?

I know this did NOT happen, but what if after all people wanted shah back, either immediately (or later while he was alive when people got to know him and shah's popularity started rising?). I remember people singing in early eighties, when shah had passed away:

Reza chi koojay, reza chi biya.

Referring to RP of course. What would have he done if people wanted M.R. Shah back or RP? Had he managed the vote to evade that outcome as you suggested?

So I am for my part happy for that honorable Iranian Nation that they have begann their struggle for an Islamic republic many many years before 1978/79 and that they have succeeded to found it by sacrificing blood and life on February 1st 1979. Imam Khomaini(r) did not have any personal interesst on the Result of the Voting.

If life is so good under IRI, why aren't you living there? Or is it that the disaster is only good for 'other' iranians within as long as you live without?

People had tasted shah's regime, they had not tasted islamic republic. Now People know about both. Would you have enough respect for iranians to let them decide and maybe revise their votes, or a one-time vote is sufficient. If one-time vote is sufficient, then the vote of 1905 (for constitutional monarchy) or one-time vote of the parliament to name reza khan the shah in 1299 A.H. were also sufficient as well.

If Not a Referendum, Then What?

“Your essay is not done. So what is your solution? Military strike, People Uprising, People revolution, foreign intervention, another 50 years of corrupt IRI regime?”

Although I have expressed my opinion on this topic before in passing, I will reply to your question loudly and clearly this time:

The demise of mullahs is only possible through a bloody revolution. The Shi'a ideology demands nothing less! The nature of our enemy (radical religious right) settles for nothing less! Mullahs and their flock will relinquish power not even to Imam Mehdi if he appears at the doorsteps of Khamenei today! They will burn him alive at the hanging gallows…

This bloody revolution is not possible at this moment because of a few factors:

First, there is no common leadership amongst the opposition. In the absence of such leadership, the opposition is reduced to a handful of opposing groups debating over the solutions. Since we have not crossed over this milestone yet, the subject of unity under one charismatic leadership continually creeps up.

Second, Iranians, intellectuals and laymen alike, aren’t quite sure what system of government best suits their needs. We vacillate between the glorious days of the past and the lure of proven democratic systems. We want the best of both worlds and have not yet reconciled the differences between the two. Due to the dismal failure of IRI, we are rightfully cautious, mindful of our previous mishaps, and hopeful of better fortunes...

Lastly, we continue to underestimate the cunning of our enemy. Even worst, we even don’t know who exactly our enemy is.

The Quran sits on the mantel peacefully;
The Azan graciously calling us to worship;
The men of cloth healing our wounds;
The heaven awaiting our arrival…

These are the common images of Islam from our collective pasts as far as we can remember. We don’t yet grasp the reality of what Arab armies did to us and their ancestors continue to do to us today…

The truth is too painful, too ugly. But mullahs have forced us to face it in the last 30 years. And as a result, we are still mourning the loss of our religion, the loss of its innocence. Right now, the Iranian society is faced with this gapping hole in its identity: If we are not blood thirsty Muslims anymore, what are we?

The answer to this question will determine the course of our history.

Answer to Imagine ;0)

If 60 % Would have Voted for the Monarchy, Khomeiny would have simply Killed Them Off.

That is How Far HIS Referendum was Legitimate ! ...

YT Thanks for Your Master Course Teacher ! BUT ... ;0)

I did not know that the Word "Republican" was an Insult ?

Nor that Democrats were not members of the American Republic ? Or Federal Republic as you Will ?

Oh But you did not realize I was mentioning the Republic State and YOU confused it with the Republic Party that Big FAT Elephant ? 

Well Maybe Indeed you Prefer the Donkey Analogy then ? The Very Logo Symbol of the Democrat Party !

Since you like Wikipedia Quotes maybe you should learn one or two things about your own Country and its Constitution.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, the States, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

I do not think I have Insulted You Sir but if I did I am sorry but You are Not a Registered Person (PHOTO / REAL NAME)  to be Treated as a REAL PERSON Accountable for his or Her Opinion and I don't See Why I should not treat your Posts for anything else than an Anonymous Post. If you are such a Sissy about Insults I and Everyone else have had their share (OVER THE YEARS AND FACE THEM REGARDLESS OF THE PAIN AND THREATS) and probably by the Likes of Yours Too. At LEast I have Never Insulted nor Been RUDE ANONYMOUSLY. As a Matter of Fact I AVOID RUDE COMMENTs Towards REAL ACCOUNTABLE OPINIONS !

Begin By Being ACCOUNTABLE before Giving Lessons of Bien Seance to me Sir.

L.G.

You don't need to apologize to anyone for your good intentions for your country. I KNOW your intentions are good. I assure you that MY intentions are good too, so we share a great deal. It is that I believe there are so many thugs amongst us that will never allow our good intentions to materialize, that is why I believe that shah was good enough and we made a big mistake to replace him so blindly. But hey, if we can have something better than him (and certainly better than IRI), I am all for it. But I doubt if I see that day in my lifetime.

Khomeini with a single Yes/No vote

The question is:
What would have khomeini done if a majority, say 60%, voted for the Monarchy?
1. No Voter could have ever vote so directly fior Monarchy.The question which was supposed to be answered was:
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC; YES/NO
any other answer and remark would have been disqualified.
2. Now i think the question which you respectable Mr./Miss/Mrs. Imagine mean is: If the majority has voted with NO then Would khomeini have accepted that vote??
I make use of my freedom of speech and give a answer to this quwstion:
I think Imam Khomaini(r) was a man who loved Iran and Iranians. By the way: He was the most competent Mullah in the Islamic World. He knew - so I think - that imposing the Islamic Government can not be of any permanenz. He had in advance said: If the majority answers with No we will then see what we will have to do. It means the refrondom question would have been reformulated with integrating - for example - : Constitutional MONARCHY Yes/NO?
In case that the majority had decided for Monarchy, and if then, a come back for his majesty the shahanshah Aryamehr would have been as much impossible as a war Iranians against Iranians possible. So I am for my part happy for that honorable Iranian Nation that they have begann their struggle for an Islamic republic many many years before 1978/79 and that they have succeeded to found it by sacrificing blood and life on February 1st 1979. Imam Khomaini(r) did not have any personal interesst on the Result of the Voting. Greeting

Darius KADIVAR

First things first: Divide and Conquer = Divide and Rule

[....In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy.....]

[...In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites "Divide et impera" in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War [3] (Dell'arte della guerra ), that a Captain should endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.....]

Semantics aside and at the expense of becoming DEFENSIVE, where was it you saw me calling supporters of referendum as [Fanatic Shahollahies]? And where was it you noticed me condemning referendum and getting pissed at the fact that Monarchist might win??? Perhaps I missed it too?

You say and I quote:
[...A real SHAHOLLAHI Would NOT EVEN ACCEPT A VOTE Because they Believe in DIVINE RULE. That is NOT THE CASE for CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHISTS. ...]

Lets look at some definitions my friend shall we?

DININE RULE: [...The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal ABSOLUTISM. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of a presumptive GOD. The king is thus NOT subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including the church. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers RUN CONTRARY TO WILL OF GODS and may constitute TREASON.....]

[...The origins of the theory are rooted in the MEDIEVAL idea that a GOD had bestowed earthly power to the king, just as the GOD had given spiritual power and authority to the church, centering on the POPE....]

AYATOLLAH: Signs of GOD

CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY: Although contemporary constitutional monarchies MOSTLY are representative, constitutional democratic monarchies, they have co-existed with fascist and quasi-fascist constitutions (Italy, Spain) and with military dictatorships (Thailand), Last but not least Pahlavi's DICTATORSHIP in Iran.

Master Darius, I have been called collections of very colorful names by likes of you: Shia militant, Iran Hater, Jew Hater, Lefty, sick Muslim,..... But i take offense in you calling me a REPUBLICAN. FYI, I am a registered Democrat.

Care to revise your questions SIR??? but do me a favor, as I said earlier, SPARE ME THE NAME CALLING. These childish tactics do not work with me.

-YT

Question.

Khomeini with a single Yes/No vote allowed people to vote for Islamic Republic to replace Monarchy. 98% voted for the Islamic Republic.

What would have khomeini done if a majority, say 60%, voted for the Monarchy instead in that vote? Would khomeini have accepted that vote and return of the shah, or had he cheated and changed the votes, or had he issued a fatwa establishing the Islamic Republic anyway?

Conclusion, people favor voting when they KNOW their side wins. They oppose it (as in IRI and here?) when they know their side may lose. That is called "democracy my way or highway".

Nope YT It's Called Divide and Rule ! ... ;0)

That's the Art of Governance my dear Friend and the base of Leadership in Politics. Unity is impossible without leadership be it in a REPUBLIC or CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY.

If You Haven't Even Understood the Basics of Politics then don't be Surprised that Iranian Republicans have never been able to Run our country. Even the Mullah's understood this but before you. LOL

Whithout that NOTHING is Possible. Instead You simply have ANARCHY with No Winner and No Loser Except Democracy Itself which loses on the long run.

What do you think OBAMA is doing write now in order to make sure he can govern ? He had to make Compromises in order to rally even his opponents.

There is NOTHING Immoral about the Concept of Leadership ( In the sense of DIVIDE & RULE) if it means trying to govern by satisfying the large numbers of people. That is the VERY nature of Any Successful Policy. If it is done in a Democratic Way ( Which is not the Case of the Mullah's ) and in this case through the Power of the Pen and NOT Guns and Powder Then What's Wrong with That ?

Now You Are Pissed Off because of the fact that giving a chance to a Referandum may prove fatal to your Chances of establishing a Republic.

Well Why ask Others to commit Political Suicide if you are so Sure of your Own Republican Superiority ? Are You Afraid to LOSE An Election ?

If a Referendum ( Even Under International Supervision) Scares you so Much it means that you believe that the PEOPLE may Choose the System of Government that will not favor Your Choice despite the fact that it would equally be a Democratic one ( Since Constitutional Monarchies are by Definition Democratic).

BESIDES WHAT IS SO SHAHOLLAHI ABOUT A REFERANDUM ?

A real SHAHOLLAHI Would NOT EVEN ACCEPT A VOTE Because they Believe in DIVINE RULE. That is NOT THE CASE for CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHISTS.

So Stop Calling those who support a Referandum as Fanatic Shahollahis. Since they have already Taken a Step towards conciliation. Even the MKO which has its Already Elected Parliament and President in Exile cannot be compared to the Constitutional Monarchists. If there are a Real SHAHOLLAHI in the sense of Fanaticism it is NOT the Monarchists BUT the MKO.

TELL ME : What Have Republican's suggested to date that could be considered as a Concession ? If You think that by Asking Monarchists to commit Political Suicide by asking the person they consider as their King to Relinquish to his Royal Credentials just to satisfy your Republican Views, then where is the CHALLENGE ?

The Monarchists even the Orthodox Shahollahi's have come to accepting the Results of a Referandum which in itself is a Great Concession.

You Guys are Simply NOT FAIRPLAY but rather BAD SPORTS ! ;0)

LOL 

Divide and Conquer

The philosophy that has worked for IRI, as it did for Shah(Pahlavi dynasty):

....................DIVIDE AND CONQUER.................

How can we as a nation expect to run these murderous regime out, when our so called self proclaimed intellectuals and patriots in this small world of [iranian.com] can't even agree on one single principle???

What we do BEST is to rip each other out and call each other every rude and ugly name in the book.

Masters Laleh Gillani, David ET, I do find your postings very insightful, thanks for sharing them.

If No to Referednum then what?

The article well written and the theme well laid out, but few missing pieces:

I agree with you:

"Our motherland has said no to the Pahlavi dynasty, has rejected the dark ages of mullahs, has dismissed the advances of Mojahedin-e Khalq to tryout another flavor of Islam, and still awaits the revelation of a new, coherent proposal from the radical left."

But you failed to provide a solution.

Your essay is not done. So what is your solution.

Military strike
People Uprising
People revolution
foreign intervention
another 50 years of corrupt IRI regime

In 1998 Iranian student wen on on masses on the streets of Tehran, Shiraz and Isfahan and they demanded peacefully for more freedom. PEACEFULLY.

The savages in IRI regime, answer to that peaceful rally:

- Apprehension of all students and their leader
- Execution, rape of some of their leaders
-Solitary confinement and torture of some of the protesters

So what should they do?

If referendum is held by UN, under UN watch and observed by a third part monitoring which has been done in the past in other dangerous regions, why not allow people to express themselves and demand for more freedom of expression.

Bankrupt!

Going through the postings below, one cannot help but notice the morally bankrupt nature of the Pahlavi-supporters' arguments in trying to justify the criminal conducts of Shah and his SAVAK in dealing with political dissent!
Here is an example of a Pahlavist's shilling for Shah's torture chambers in a posting (by Anomous Wow?) below: "Wake up and smell the roses. This is NOT 1979. Yes, shah was NOT perfect, but neither were iranians, and those in prisons were far more imperfect than the shah."

Self-reighteous?! Not if one believes that the "imperfect" political prisoners needed to be taught a lesson or two by the Shah's SAVAK!

One only needs to replace the name, Shah, with any other to fathom the absurdity of such a statement which opens the door for any dictator to justify holding political prisoners in jail! Don't Khamenei's supporters believe in the same principle?! Maybe Shah and Khamenei have far more in common than their supporters wish to admit!

Dear Jamshid

I doubt if this is the answer you are seeking but it is my answer becuse I really do not believe in getting in to what if situations of the past while we have plenty of them in the present. I wasn't even born then but I am alive today.

My solution for Shah would have been to respect the constitution and stick to his constitutional role by staying as the unifying symbol and role that he had and to stay out of politics and let the Government and Parliament of the time handle it and provide the atmosphere of support and unity.

My solution for Mossadegh and the parliament would have been to cooperate and discuss the issues that you brought up and to also respect the constitution and the roles that Shah had in it and present a unifying face to the nation.

David

I added three questions to the bottom of my last post which are directed to you (and others as well).

I have challenged myself for realistc answers to these and other similar questions for many years, and I have always come short.

The lack of a fair and unbiased answer to these type of questions on one hand, and detaching myself from my old and well trenched feelings on the other hand, are some of the reaons why I changed my views regarding the Shah, and the Pahlavis in general.

However, the bottom line is as you and Laleh have put it so well. Mainly that we must focus on our future which brings out our many similar wants and desires for our country and our people.

I think we all agree that freeing Iran from the IRI today is vastly more important than what Shah or Mossadegh, or Bakthiar, etc, were and did in the past. This fact should be emphasized.

Dear Jamshid

In answer to who was primarily responsible for the "environment"  (of 1979) I would resort to the words of the SHADRAVAN cousin of Laheh who accurately predicated:

"When a monarch takes it upon himself to dictate the political choices available to a nation, the masses are easily duped to seek unsavory characters as outlets to express their political frustrations with the regime. In the absence of a free press and under strict censorship of any forms of published media, it becomes impossible for the opposing groups to expose the true colors of such characters and their long term intentions.”

But at the end of the day it does not matter who WAS responsible anymore, what is important is what WE are going to do TODAY. 

I agree let's move beyond the PAST and look forward. 

Wishing us all Peace and Unity and thank you Laleh and everyone for a lively,healthy and democratic discussion

I too Wish for a democratic Iran where we ALL can peacefully and freely discuss our different views to seek what is best for the future of OUR nation...

Indeed : Iran Hargez Nakhahad Mord

Re: David ET

"Shah and Pahlavi family are directly responsible for most of the environment that caused the uprising... Any other view of revolution as an isolated incident lacks the proper logical, social or historical explanations"

You seem to hold such a deep hatred of the Pahlavis that it is clouding your judgement. 

Do you mean to say that the mollahs, the left, the bazaris, foreign interests, our culture and the two hundreds years of prior history, had only a minor role in what happened in 1979?

What about Mossadegh's poor political judgements and his stuborness that led to the 1953 events? Did that have anything to do with 1979? Or is it always the Shah's fault?

David, I mean no offense, but you seem to still be living in 1979, and not having been able to rise above your biases and personal feelings.

I am challenging you to answer these questions:

1. What is YOUR solution for Shah, Mossadegh or anyone else in the 50s, to run the country, to modernize it, handle the powerful foreign and capable domestic forces that oppose you, deal with an illiterate population that didn't even know the meaning of the word democracy, prevent corruption among a historically corrupt people, and at the same time not resort to dictatorial methods?

2. What is your solution for Shah, Mossadegh or anyone else in the 50s regarding oil? What is your solution to a fair oil deal when your own country did not have even the minimum technical knowlege or the equipment to extract oil, or refine it, or ships to export it, or to do anything major with that oil?

3. What is your solution for Shah, Mossadegh or anyone else in the 50s, to deal with tens of thousands of brainwashed masses who were plotting to overthrow your demorcatic government and replace it with their own dictatorship, and willing to kill and die and go to any end or means in order to do so? How would you have dealt with these people?

I'd like to read your answers on these questions.

Laleh Gillani You don't need to excuse yourself

You have the right to express yourself and say and think whatever you want. Welcome to the Club. Iran belongs to us all !

We all have our own views and each is respectful if defended with logic and respect for others. I believe it is your case even if we may disagree on some levels I do not think we doubt one anothers Patriotisms.

Wishing you and your loved ones the best and for our compatriots back home or in exile the same.

IRAN HARGUEZ NAKHAHAD MORD !

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH5zPPk4OY8

DK

A few Thoughts As We Wind Down…

As we wind down this discussion, I would like to express my gratitude towards all who participated and expressed their opinions. It has been a distinct honor and privilege to share the stage with all of you, to learn from the opposing views, and to extend a hand of friendship towards a hamvatan across the vast emptiness of the cyber space…

If during this time, I have offended anyone either by my words or opinions, I sincerely apologize and beg for your gracious pardon.

I dream of a day that I can meet all of you in person surrounded by the eternal beauty of a Persian garden, breathing the distinct fragrance of freedom (and Tehran’s pollution), sharing a cup of hot tea, discussing the next upcoming free election…

Iran shall never die…