Iran's nuclear weapons program was never halted says IAEA.

[Sirotnikov]

And that idea of popular soverignty and of individual human rights makes the Iranian regime different from anything in the past.

what ideas of popular sovereignity?
the leading figures are chosen form a well defined set of people, with the elders able to strike down anyone they don't want.

your statement about human rights is pathetic, for a country only so much different from Taliban's Afghanistan, that has moral-police forces going around hitting immodest women.



let's see some khomeini quotes on human rights:

Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials. Islam, however, allows marksmanship, horseback riding and competition ...

Islam and divine governments ... have commandments for everybody, everywhere, at any place, in any condition. If a person were to commit an immoral dirty deed right next to his house, Islamic governments have business with him. .... Islam has rules for every person, even before birth, before his marriage, until his marriages, pregnancy, birth, until upbringing of the child, the education of the adult, until puberty, youth, until old age, until death, into the grave, and beyond the grave.

seems like a human rights fanatic

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
what ideas of popular sovereignity?
the leading figures are chosen form a well defined set of people, with the elders able to strike down anyone they don't want.

Are you playing thick?

First of all, as the system is structured, those "elders" themselves are ultimately elected.

Second, even if a aet of elders chose the candidates, the final chose is still made by the body politic as a whole.

The Iranian system is far more democratic than say Egypt, Jordan, or KSA.

your statement about human rights is pathetic, for a country only so much different from Taliban's Afghanistan, that has moral-police forces going around hitting immodest women.

So does KSA. Unlike the Taliban, or KSA, Iranian women can vote, go to universities, and hold elected position.

And as for Khomeini, maybe you haven't noticed, but he has been dead for almost 20 years. And his interpretation of Islam (not universally held by the senior Ayatollah's in Iran anyways) are just that, HIS interpretations.

[Wezil]

Islam has rules for every person, even before birth, before his marriage, until his marriages, pregnancy, birth, until upbringing of the child, the education of the adult, until puberty, youth, until old age, until death, into the grave, and beyond the grave.

Wow! That's a demanding faith.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Are you playing thick?

First of all, as the system is structured, those "elders" themselves are ultimately elected.

Second, even if a aet of elders chose the candidates, the final chose is still made by the body politic as a whole.

The Iranian system is far more democratic than say Egypt, Jordan, or KSA.

Look, you're using silly tactics to distract me from the actual argument.

It was never my intention to suggest that Iran is as autocratic as egypt.

Eventually, in Iran, public support is an important part of the political system - mainly picking the president and the parliament (even though they are limited in power). There is an active political game, part of which is persuing public support a means to get into a position of power. This often does not give direct power, but it gives a perception of power that is important to measure the support of certain policies or directions.

But it is still far from calling it a democracy, or saying that democracy is something that defines the Iranian government.
In the bottom line, popular elections is just another tool that Iranian government has to justify its policies. These are somewhat affected by popular support.

Let's take an example
Lord Putin also has an elections process. That does not make Russia democratic, because he has absolute control of the media, and the state uses various means to disqualify unpleasant presidential candidates. So there is a democratic process in place, and popular support is something that the leaders do want. That is still not exactly democracy.


Frankly, I don't even know how did you get to this point, while trying to prove that Ahmedinejad is comparable to the queen of england in his affect on the Iranian policy.

So does KSA. Unlike the Taliban, or KSA, Iranian women can vote, go to universities, and hold elected position.

Yes, obviously Iran is a paragon of human rights.
Jordan or Lebanon would be better examples of human rights, unless I'm forgetting something.

Your original point was that Iran has had a modern revolution and is basically some sort of limited democracy.

You're utterly wrong however, since in the basis of this revolution is the absolute rejection of such modern recognition (that existed in Islam for centuries) like the separation between church power and state power, and mutual consultation (shura) process that was thrown out for "wilaiat al faqih", and esmat.

And as for Khomeini, maybe you haven't noticed, but he has been dead for almost 20 years. And his interpretation of Islam (not universally held by the senior Ayatollah's in Iran anyways) are just that, HIS interpretations.

his interpretation is the groundwork for the Iranian Islamic revolution.

If you want to prove that "The Iranian revolution was a thoroughly modern one" you have to explain it in the views of the revolution maker himself.

What you're doing is applying the more recent Iranian political culture to paint the whole revolution in bright light. That is akin to taking concepts from modern Chinese economic policies, and using them to describe the Chinese revolution.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
But it is still far from calling it a democracy, or saying that democracy is something that defines the Iranian government.
In the bottom line, popular elections is just another tool that Iranian government has to justify its policies. These are somewhat affected by popular support.

Democracy does not equal freedom. That comes from the Liberal part, the part that proclaims that not only should power come from the masses, but that each individual in those masses has rights that even the masses can't take away.

Iran is certainly not a Liberal democracy, but it remains a modern popular regime.

Your original point was that Iran has had a modern revolution and is basically some sort of limited democracy.

You're utterly wrong however, since in the basis of this revolution is the absolute rejection of such modern recognition (that existed in Islam for centuries) like the separation between church power and state power, and mutual consultation (shura) process that was thrown out for "wilaiat al faqih", and esmat.

The seperation of Church and state power is not a be all and end all of "modernity," specially in politics. What makes the Iranian regime a modern one is that it is popular in nature: Khomeini rode a popular revolution into power, and his very ideology that clerical power should predominate was NOT commonly held by his fellow Ayatollahs, making him a radical in that respect. Radicalism being another bit of modernity.

What you're doing is applying the more recent Iranian political culture to paint the whole revolution in bright light. That is akin to taking concepts from modern Chinese economic policies, and using them to describe the Chinese revolution.

Being modern is not an inherent positive thing at all. And by the standards you set, the Chinese revolution was completely and thoroughly a modern revolution.

[Kuciwalker]

Way to completely ignore his point.

[Ramo]

The Iranian revolution was a throwback to the early Caliphates only in the way that there was a severe idealization of this period that served as a model for some social mores. But its acceptance that power must be legitimized by the people is a decidedly modern one, and makes it fundamentally different

The Expediency Council is an elected office - one where the reactionaries most recently suffered a major defeat, and they elect the Supreme Leader. There are views that are censored by the state, but that isn't all that foreign to Western politics, 'specially outside the British Imperial world.

What fundamentally differentiates our legal system from theirs are a stronger judiciary, less transparency, more corruption, resistance to change built into the political strucutre, less cash, and more conservative social mores. Some differences are quite substantial in degree, but it's a system of government that's much closer to ours than to any in the 7th or 8th century.

[Lancer]

If I were pres I would redraw the map of the world taking away all the different place names in the mid east and writ large across it I would write 'DOWN RANGE'.