IRAN!!!!Put down the rocks...and pick up an AK!!!

[Jon]

Iran is a democratic country. That's why they have elections.

It is not a true democracy. Their actual leader is not an elected official and serves until death. The ayatollah has the power to appoint many of the top ranking officials, a power reserved in true democracies for the elected president, not the appointed one.

 

[Lycurgus]

Iran will remain an Muslim country with Islamic laws and a democratically elected government.

In order for Iran to "remain" with a democratically elected government, it would first have to HAVE a democratically elected government. The point of the protests is that the government is not elected because the elections are rigged.

I don't see the point, really. Mousavi is no better than Ahmadinejad, in my opinion. It's ironic so many people are claiming Mousavi is the "Obama" of Iran, when Mousavi is actually more like the John McCain of Iran. He's been in Iran's political process before, and he was certainly no revolutionary then.

The elections were "allegedly" rigged.

Iran is a democratic country. That's why they have elections.

The voter turn out was 85%

That's higher than any election in any country in the history of democratic elections.

Oh heck, democracy ............. well that explains why so many are so upset. They got open and fair elections and they are pissed.

The constitution of Iran permits for peaceful demonstrations. Yet, the Mullah's, you know those elected people who really run this democratic nation, turned the military on them right away!

Thank you Sinni, now I get it.

Sunni, STFU

 

[toomuchtime_]

Iran will remain an Muslim country with Islamic laws and a democratically elected government.

In order for Iran to "remain" with a democratically elected government, it would first have to HAVE a democratically elected government. The point of the protests is that the government is not elected because the elections are rigged.

I don't see the point, really. Mousavi is no better than Ahmadinejad, in my opinion. It's ironic so many people are claiming Mousavi is the "Obama" of Iran, when Mousavi is actually more like the John McCain of Iran. He's been in Iran's political process before, and he was certainly no revolutionary then.

Mousavi was one of the pillars of the 1979 Iranian revolution and served as Prime Minister, a post now eliminated but then roughly corresponding to the presidency in Iran today, during Iran's war with Iraq, being generally credited with outstanding management of the economy and other domestic affairs during this time. Obama came to office with a record devoid of political accomplishments and has never in his life shown a willingness to stand on principle if it put him at any personal or professional risk, so I guess your point about Mousavi being no Obama is correct. Since I don't speak Farsi, I can't say whether Mousavi can read a speech as well as Obama can or not.

However, the issue is not Mousavi vs. Ahmadinejah or even Mousavi vs. the political structure in Iran, it is whether or not the presumptive leader of the free world will support the democratic rights of the Iranian people or not. It is impossible to understand why Obama has been so reluctant to voice strong support for these democratic rights since it is clear the US will be blamed for the protests regardless of what he says and since it is clear that the current regime will not yield anything with regard to its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons or its support of terrorism or its efforts to destabilize the governments of Lebanon and the Palestinians.

 

[Sunni Man]

Iran is a democratic country. ates,That's why they have elections.

It is not a true democracy.

So which country is a "true" democracy?

Germany, Japan, Turkey, United States, France, Lebanon, Italy, Egypt, Malyasia, Sweden ???

 

[necritan]

Iran is a democratic country. ates,That's why they have elections.

It is not a true democracy.

So which country is a "true" democracy?

Germany, Japan, Turkey, United States, France, Lebanon, Italy, Egypt, Malyasia, Sweden ???

Ummmm...we're a representative Republic.

 

[Sunni Man]

It is not a true democracy.

So which country is a "true" democracy?

Germany, Japan, Turkey, United States, France, Lebanon, Italy, Egypt, Malyasia, Sweden ???

Ummmm...we're a representative Republic.

So what country is a "true democracy" he was talking about?

 

[necritan]

So which country is a "true" democracy?

Germany, Japan, Turkey, United States, France, Lebanon, Italy, Egypt, Malyasia, Sweden ???

Ummmm...we're a representative Republic.

So what country is a "true democracy" he was talking about?

A lot claim to be.....so here is a little info on what a democracy is. But for damn sure....we weren't founded as such.

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is not a true democracy.

So which country is a "true" democracy?

Germany, Japan, Turkey, United States, France, Lebanon, Italy, Egypt, Malyasia, Sweden ???

Ummmm...we're a representative Republic.

And what is the difference between a representative Republic and a democracy? If the government is chosen through democratic processes, isn't it, in fact, a democracy?

 

[Annie]

So which country is a "true" democracy?

Germany, Japan, Turkey, United States, France, Lebanon, Italy, Egypt, Malyasia, Sweden ???

Ummmm...we're a representative Republic.

And what is the difference between a representative Republic and a democracy? If the government is chosen through democratic processes, isn't it, in fact, a democracy?

Umm, no. In a true democracy there wouldn't be representatives, all qualified citizens would vote on all issues. Just not feasible outside of a small, mostly homogeneous area, like Athens, Greece back in the day.

Actually some of the town meetings were semi-democratic, especially in frontier towns, but long ago.

 

[necritan]

So which country is a "true" democracy?

Germany, Japan, Turkey, United States, France, Lebanon, Italy, Egypt, Malyasia, Sweden ???

Ummmm...we're a representative Republic.

And what is the difference between a representative Republic and a democracy? If the government is chosen through democratic processes, isn't it, in fact, a democracy?

We have a process of checks and balances.....we have a "document" that ensures States rights. We have individual States...with individual governance...and individual laws. But...we have that special document that ensures individual freedoms regardless of mob rules or mentality. We weren't set up as one big nation with one big Democratic government....we are essentially a set of small nations under the umbrella of the Constitution. Plus....our founders...as a general rule...abhored true Democracy. Because a true Democracy can fall victim to the majority of individual's stripping away the rights of the minority. That is not possible on a grand scale here....at least not yet.

 

[Annie]

Iran will remain an Muslim country with Islamic laws and a democratically elected government.

In order for Iran to "remain" with a democratically elected government, it would first have to HAVE a democratically elected government. The point of the protests is that the government is not elected because the elections are rigged.

I don't see the point, really. Mousavi is no better than Ahmadinejad, in my opinion. It's ironic so many people are claiming Mousavi is the "Obama" of Iran, when Mousavi is actually more like the John McCain of Iran. He's been in Iran's political process before, and he was certainly no revolutionary then.

Mousavi was one of the pillars of the 1979 Iranian revolution and served as Prime Minister, a post now eliminated but then roughly corresponding to the presidency in Iran today, during Iran's war with Iraq, being generally credited with outstanding management of the economy and other domestic affairs during this time. Obama came to office with a record devoid of political accomplishments and has never in his life shown a willingness to stand on principle if it put him at any personal or professional risk, so I guess your point about Mousavi being no Obama is correct. Since I don't speak Farsi, I can't say whether Mousavi can read a speech as well as Obama can or not.

However, the issue is not Mousavi vs. Ahmadinejah or even Mousavi vs. the political structure in Iran, it is whether or not the presumptive leader of the free world will support the democratic rights of the Iranian people or not. It is impossible to understand why Obama has been so reluctant to voice strong support for these democratic rights since it is clear the US will be blamed for the protests regardless of what he says and since it is clear that the current regime will not yield anything with regard to its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons or its support of terrorism or its efforts to destabilize the governments of Lebanon and the Palestinians.

Trying to get back on topic. The following is probably the most interesting and indicative of what may happen I've seen today:

The Iranian Revolt - Rich Lowry - The Corner on National Review Online

It's quite long, unusual for Lowry at the Corner:

The Iranian Revolt [Rich Lowry]
John O'Sullivan wrote me this note today.

Dear Rich,

Thanks for your note. I am happy to give you my judgment on the Iranian revolt. In brief, it’s one of the most important movements of our time. It radically undermines both the realist argument that Muslims are uninterested in democracy and the Jihadist claim to represent the mass of Muslims. And if it continues—whether it is crushed or triumphs in the immediate future—it will add immeasurably to the forces of evolutionary change in the Muslim world since it strikes me as being more like the Glorious, American and “velvet” revolutions (i.e., it is a revolution against a radical revolution) than like the French, Bolshevik, and 1979 revolutions.

Well, that’s a bigger mouthful than you expected. But this is an issue on which I would prefer you to take the advice and opinions of my Iranian colleagues on Radio Farda and the English language website of RFERL. So I am attaching two documents below that I think you will find helpful.

The first is a private e-mail form my senior colleague, Abbas Djavadi, a former head of Farda and now the Associate Director for the service as a whole. I had asked him to predict what might now happen. Here is his reply (which I quote with permission) from a hurried discussion yesterday:

...

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ummmm...we're a representative Republic.

And what is the difference between a representative Republic and a democracy? If the government is chosen through democratic processes, isn't it, in fact, a democracy?

We have a process of checks and balances.....we have a "document" that ensures States rights. We have individual States...with individual governance...and individual laws. But...we have that special document that ensures individual freedoms regardless of mob rules or mentality. We weren't set up as one big nation with one big Democratic government....we are essentially a set of small nations under the umbrella of the Constitution. Plus....our founders...as a general rule...abhored true Democracy. Because a true Democracy can fall victim to the majority of individual's stripping away the rights of the minority. That is not possible on a grand scale here....at least not yet.

I agree that as originally defined in the Constitution, the federal government was not a democracy, although the state governments were by the standards of the time, but as amended, I would argue, the Constitution does now define the federal government as a democracy, with representation in the Senate being disproportionate to a state's population being the last vestige and bulwark of state's rights, and the Senate and the unelected federal courts being the defenders of minority rights.

 

[necritan]

And what is the difference between a representative Republic and a democracy? If the government is chosen through democratic processes, isn't it, in fact, a democracy?

We have a process of checks and balances.....we have a "document" that ensures States rights. We have individual States...with individual governance...and individual laws. But...we have that special document that ensures individual freedoms regardless of mob rules or mentality. We weren't set up as one big nation with one big Democratic government....we are essentially a set of small nations under the umbrella of the Constitution. Plus....our founders...as a general rule...abhored true Democracy. Because a true Democracy can fall victim to the majority of individual's stripping away the rights of the minority. That is not possible on a grand scale here....at least not yet.

I agree that as originally defined in the Constitution, the federal government was not a democracy, although the state governments were by the standards of the time, but as amended, I would argue, the Constitution does now define the federal government as a democracy, with representation in the Senate being disproportionate to a state's population being the last vestige and bulwark of state's rights, and the Senate and the unelected federal courts being the defenders of minority rights.

Yup....it keeps getting twisted.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ummmm...we're a representative Republic.

And what is the difference between a representative Republic and a democracy? If the government is chosen through democratic processes, isn't it, in fact, a democracy?

Umm, no. In a true democracy there wouldn't be representatives, all qualified citizens would vote on all issues. Just not feasible outside of a small, mostly homogeneous area, like Athens, Greece back in the day.

Actually some of the town meetings were semi-democratic, especially in frontier towns, but long ago.

As you suggest, representative democracy is the only form of democracy that is possible for a large nation, and I would argue that the fact voters choose to delegate some of their responsibilities to representatives as a practical necessity does not make the process of government less democratic.

 

[necritan]

Our Constitution is the big difference.....especially the 10th amendment.

 

[Navy1960]

2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God, but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression according to the Koran....

So then are the protestors not following the true laws of Islam? and fighting and speaking out against those would seek to oppress them? I'm frankly surprised when I see people who would on the one hand condemn then United States for it's actions in the Middle East and then turn around and support those nations in the Middle East who would oppress their own peoples right to express themselves and choose "rightfully" those that would represent them. The original thread author at least to me posed an interesting question when it comes to the Govt's desire to impose it's will upon the people and a properly armed population. I wonder then how quickly the Supreme Leader would have jumped to support the election results had he understood the population was armed by law? What is going on in Iran is free people expressing a desire to have the Govt. they choose, and power hungry individuals suppressing that right at the point of a gun. So those of you who would quickly condemn the United States for freeing the peoples of Iraq, and elsewhere to choose who they wish to lead them peacefully, don't be so quick to judge when those that you support oppress freedoms in such a dishonorable manner.

 

[Jon]

So which country is a "true" democracy?

Germany, Japan, Turkey, United States, France, Lebanon, Italy, Egypt, Malyasia, Sweden ???

Ummmm...we're a representative Republic.

So what country is a "true democracy" he was talking about?

None. But the US is a hell of a lot closer than Iran, for sure. We at least elect our highest sitting officer. Hell, we elect the vast majority of the people serving our government. The only officials not elected are Supreme Court Justices and the department secretaries appointed by the President. None of those have more power than the President (the Supreme can, as a body, exercise more power than the President, but no one individual has more power than he). Furthermore, only Supreme Court Justices serve until death or retirement (or incapacitation), and again, no one of them have more power than our elected officials.

In other words, my point is: Iran is still closer to a dictatorship than a democracy. There is no system of checks and balances to stop the Ayatollah from making a decision.

 

[Annie]

And what is the difference between a representative Republic and a democracy? If the government is chosen through democratic processes, isn't it, in fact, a democracy?

Umm, no. In a true democracy there wouldn't be representatives, all qualified citizens would vote on all issues. Just not feasible outside of a small, mostly homogeneous area, like Athens, Greece back in the day.

Actually some of the town meetings were semi-democratic, especially in frontier towns, but long ago.

As you suggest, representative democracy is the only form of democracy that is possible for a large nation, and I would argue that the fact voters choose to delegate some of their responsibilities to representatives as a practical necessity does not make the process of government less democratic.

Sure it does, since rarely will I always agree with my representatives, however what's democratic is the way they are elected. So while the decisions are less than democratic, the decision makers are.

 

[Jon]

I would argue that the fact voters choose to delegate some of their responsibilities to representatives as a practical necessity does not make the process of government less democratic.

What you fail to acknowledge is that voters are forced to delegate some of their responsibilities to representatives. There is no system by which we can bypass our representatives and cast our own votes in the Houses of Congress.

Realistically, the only means by which we could do such would be to elect enough representatives who would amend the Constitution to allow such right by the citizens of the country.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I would argue that the fact voters choose to delegate some of their responsibilities to representatives as a practical necessity does not make the process of government less democratic.

What you fail to acknowledge is that voters are forced to delegate some of their responsibilities to representatives. There is no system by which we can bypass our representatives and cast our own votes in the Houses of Congress.

Realistically, the only means by which we could do such would be to elect enough representatives who would amend the Constitution to allow such right by the citizens of the country.

Not at all. The Constitution is not amended in that way because most voters recognize that direct votes on all bills would be impractical. In the age of the internet, the technical obstacles to direct vote could easily be overcome, but how many of the people you know would you trust to put in the effort to understand the issues and technicalities and implications of these bills well enough to make an informed and intelligent decision?