Wiping democracy off the map

The United States and its allies have to help the democratization of the Middle East, and Islamic Republic is the centre

Mehran Makki
October 28, 2005
iranian.com

Islamic republic has got twenty seven years of history behind it, starting with the slogan "Freedom". What the ordinary Iranian people thought of that was democracy and human rights. But what the leaders of Islamic Republic really meant was freedom for themselves to destroy our country first and then export this so-called revolution to the Islamic world and in order to destroy the entire Western civilization and replacing it with Islamic fanatic ideas.

But the success of the Iranian theocracy even in Iran is out of the question. We live in the twenty-first century, in the age time of information explosion... nobody takes Iranian leaders seriously and if they are still in power it is because of their brutality -- and the support of some European countries which preferred to have trade relations with dictators in order to fulfill their own national interests with petro dollars, just as they did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The recent presidential election showed the other face of Iran's criminal regime. For the first time in the life of the Islamic Republic, virtually every organ and institution of power, electable or otherwise, has been handed over to the complete control of the conservatives. It would appear on the surface that political power is now homogeneous and concentrated at the apex of the regime, in the hands of its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

However, there is evidence that the coup was carried out behind the curtains of the elections and was not just directed against so-called reformists, or the leading candidate Hashemi Rafsanjani, but against the majority of the existing forces in the ruling oligarchy.

Moreover, by choosing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an extremist counter-intelligence officer in the Revolutionary Guards, with a history of involvement in terrorism and murder, even attendance at international gatherings has become more problematic than ever before. In particular with the nuclear weapons issue, the U.S. and Israel are in a better position to incite international public opinion against the Islamic Republic. Now, any judge or attorney anywhere can try their hand at prosecuting the most senior members of the Iranian government.

What is the real reason behind the Islamic republic's conflict with United States and its allies, including Israel? Ayatollah Khomeini the first leader of Islamic republic in 1979 was the first one who said Israel must be wiped off the map. Later Ali Akbar Rafsanjani used this phrase, that just one nuclear bomb can destroy the entire state of Israel. And now President Ahmadinejad is putting his foot in that direction, even including the destruction of the U.S. to his ridiculous dreams!

No matter what they say, the State of Israel is the only democratic country in the entire Middle East. Israel does not violate the human rights of its citizens, holds free election, respects freedom of speech, and all other real democratic values. That is the reason that Islamic Republic and all the other dictatorships in the Middle East can not tolerate it: They do not want the only democracy in the region to be in existence.

Also the United States and its allies have reached this point that in order to fight International terrorism, especially after the 9/11, they have to help the democratization of the Middle East, and Islamic Republic is the centre of wide terror network from Afghanistan to Lebanon and Syria and Iraq by spending numerous resources, financially and logistically, without leaving any traceable evidence. That is why the Islamic Republic is after destroying and wiping out these countries, because they are the real enemy of this theocratic and fanatic regime.

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2005/...ael/index.html

Now in a poll conducted by an Iranian web site majority of Iranians who voted in this poll are against such stupid remarks though

President Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel should be destroyed. Do you agree?

Yes 14.00 % ( 28 )

No 82.00 % (164)

Not sure 4.00 % ( 8 )

Total Votes: 200

Okay, I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this article, but I've read it and didn't take it too serious. The fact that the source of this article is some opinion page soesn't make it factual or true.

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2005/October/Israel/index.html

This is the route to mass hysteria, some biased fool screams his head off and it is written down. And so it becomes the truth.......

No matter what they say, the State of Israel is the only democratic country in the entire Middle East. Israel does not violate the human rights of its citizens, holds free election, respects freedom of speech, and all other real democratic values. That is the reason that Islamic Republic and all the other dictatorships in the Middle East can not tolerate it: They do not want the only democracy in the region to be in existence.

Maybe this guy should read a book about history. Saying that this is the only reason doesn't only show his ignorance on this topic, but also how badly he underestimates the complexity and how his shortsightedness will not help him to reach any solution whatsoever.

ted

r u a liberal?

That depends on how you would define "liberal". If you would translate liberal as being republican or conservative then you could safely say that I'm most definately not liberal.

The arguments you and I have about Iran are not on good versus evil. I just don't condone military intervention as a coercive measure. When it is clear that intervention is the only option, I am all for that. But as long as there is room for doubt, I am opposed. And I take a long time to be convinced and not without a reason.
During my education I had to do research on political violence, how government institutes can be used to oppress it's civilians. I learned that almost all governments lie and have double agenda's, including the US government. This latest thing with Libby make me even more reluctant. That's why I wager all the evidence and listen to all sides with equal attention. Immediatly saying "yes" to what your government says it the first step to losing your true freedom.

p.s. I have been voting socialist for the last 16 years, I'm not sure if that is enough for you to dismiss my speech as leftist radicalism?

I am sorry I cant care about what you say!

Originally Posted by Ted

I learned that almost all governments lie and have double agenda's, including the US government. This latest thing with Libby make me even more reluctant. That's why I wager all the evidence and listen to all sides with equal attention. Immediatly saying "yes" to what your government says it the first step to losing your true freedom.

Just a couple of small things.
1) Drop the "almost" and just leave the "all governments lie" part as it would be more accurate.

2) Surely you jest about not blindly following your government as we all know conformity is the cornerstone of true freedom, wasnt it McCarthy that once said "only communists dont conform" or maybe it was Groucho Marx no real difference I guess.

The arguments you and I have about Iran are not on good versus evil. I just don't condone military intervention as a coercive measure. When it is clear that intervention is the only option, I am all for that. But as long as there is room for doubt, I am opposed. And I take a long time to be convinced and not without a reason.
During my education I had to do research on political violence, how government institutes can be used to oppress it's civilians. I learned that almost all governments lie and have double agenda's, including the US government. This latest thing with Libby make me even more reluctant. That's why I wager all the evidence and listen to all sides with equal attention. Immediatly saying "yes" to what your government says it the first step to losing your true freedom.

p.s. I have been voting socialist for the last 16 years, I'm not sure if that is enough for you to dismiss my speech as leftist radicalism?

I dont understand your positions, you claim to distrust governmant, but you vote for big powerful government? At least most of us beleive that socalism is extreme left only beat by communism.

Originally Posted by Rabs

I dont understand your positions, you claim to distrust governmant, but you vote for big powerful government? At least most of us beleive that socalism is extreme left only beat by communism.

Yeah, that was my reaction too rabs! I distrust my government, and moreover I think governments are the most inefficient and bumbling things on the plannet. That's why I consistantly vote for candidates that I believe will try and head the country in a more libertarian direction.

Saying "government lie" and then voting for bigger, more encompasing socialist governments seem like a real contradiction to me.

Okay, this is getting interesting... so where do I start?

1)

I am sorry I cant care about what you say!

so why ask? Asking someone a question and then not caring about the answer makes for interesting conversations, but not serious ones.

2)

Surely you jest about not blindly following your government as we all know conformity is the cornerstone of true freedom, wasnt it McCarthy that once said "only communists dont conform" or maybe it was Groucho Marx no real difference I guess.

I wouldn't know, but I take Croucho Marx as the serious one of the two.

3)

I dont understand your positions, you claim to distrust governmant, but you vote for big powerful government? At least most of us beleive that socalism is extreme left only beat by communism.

This is actually a very interesting thought, giving me some insights in the erasoning of some. I don't know how they portray "Socialism" in the US but what we have here doesn't even come close to the original writing of Marx and Engels. Our socialist party in Holland is a mix of many streams. It takes care for the low incomes and makes sure that the big companies don't abuse the influence, wealth and power. They are against privatising major institutes like our national airport and hospitals. They are afraid that the urge to make money will supercede the quality they need to offer. Our national rails went private and prices have been rising constantly making it a very expensive means of transportation.
The fun thing is that they have built in many regulations to "protect" their civilians from an oppressive government. They centralised many economic institutes but decentralised government power. This has gone to many local government and these can be liberal, democrat, socialist or even communist.
I figure that this may not be so clear cut to some, but try to understand that is isn't about universal political theories anymore. There are so many derivatives that one should stop talking just about "the socialist".

4)

Yeah, that was my reaction too rabs! I distrust my government, and moreover I think governments are the most inefficient and bumbling things on the plannet. That's why I consistantly vote for candidates that I believe will try and head the country in a more libertarian direction.

Saying "government lie" and then voting for bigger, more encompasing socialist governments seem like a real contradiction to me.

Well Death and Rabs, I understand were you are coming from. The difference is that I believe that giving more power to just one leader will result in higher risks of abuse. In Holland we have a multi party system which means a socialist government has to rule with all others. Kinda when Bush had a democratic senate, he could make the rules but these had to comply with the others.
So you and I want the same; more freedom for the individual citizen. But Our political systems have diverged so much that the means of getting this takes us to opposite political systems.

I hope this has cleared up a few things and if not... well I know you'll let me know

Originally Posted by Ted

Our socialist party in Holland is a mix of many streams. It takes care for the low incomes and makes sure that the big companies don't abuse the influence, wealth and power. They are against privatising major institutes like our national airport and hospitals. They are afraid that the urge to make money will supercede the quality they need to offer. Our national rails went private and prices have been rising constantly making it a very expensive means of transportation.

.

Mmm Wim Kok, former Socialist Dutch Prime Minister, at present holds the following positions:

1. Member of the Supervisory Board of ING Group (international financial services)
2. Member of the Supervisory Board of Royal Dutch Shell (oil company)
3. Member of the Supervisory Board of TNT (international postal company with Dutch origin)
4. Member of the Supervisory Board of KLM (airline)

Pretty weird for someone who claims to "care for the low incomes and makes sure that the big companies don't abuse the influence, wealth and power". Looks like he actually enjoys the big companies' wealth and power.
I am not an expert of Dutch politics nor am I interested. But wasn't Wim Kok's cabinet that quit when it came to light how guilty they all had been in not doing anything to provide the protection to the people of Srebrenica Dutch forces were in charge of?
Anyways Socialists are not in power now right? The center-right won latest elections.
Just asking.