Thanks for your comment and for your Civil tone. I appreciate that you try to be inclusive of opposing views. I believe if we want to move past IR in a fundamental way, tolerance of differing views is the most important step all of us can take.
As for the point above, there is no contradiction, and I thought it would be obvious. The Nostalgia for Pahlavis is simply due to the dark period that we're going through. In other words, the support for a possible return to Pahlavi rule shouldn't be taken as a credit to RP or his father/grandfather, but as a testament of how terrible things are now. That's why I wouldn't consider it true support, because a bar of being better than IR is indeed a very low bar.
Opposition to RP or Pahlavis is not limited to IR and MEK or leftists as you suggest; many democracy-seeking Iranians oppose a return to monarchy or RP as well. To label such opposition as MEK or IR is at best simplistic, and certainly not in line with the spirit of tolerance that I opened with above. Because I do believe you are to be a tolerant person, I'm gonna take that comment in jest
I do not have a bias against Pahlavis. I dislike quite a bit of what they did in the past. To say that I'm biased against them is like saying that you and I are biased against IR. Bias is dislike for no good reason. Much like we both dislike IR for valid reasons, I also dislike the Pahlavi's rule (particularly MRP) for reasons that I consider valid. You may disagree with me, but I consider those reasons legitimate. The main reason is that I see MRP, his actions, his arrogance, and his lack of statesmanship, the main reason we have had to go through the hell that is IR.
I'm sorry but I don't buy this, and that is the main source of concern for me, for two reasons. First, he has taken every action he could to be a king. He's sworn as one. To say he doesn't want to be one just seems to be disingenuous. At best it can be taken as "I want to be the king, only if the people want me to be one". If that's the case he should just say that because at its worst, this scenario sounds eerily similar to 57.
Second, to say I don't want to be the king but if people insist I will oblige, even if honest is a dangerous attitude. Read Jacinda Ardern's resignation note. One should put oneself in the leadership position, particularly leadership of a country so entrenched in problems as Iran is, only and only if one's every bone and cell wants it and seeks it, not because people dump it on you. Compare it with Masih. When she talks you can see that will and passion in her words, that she is all in. She doesn't wait to be asked to lead, to be bestowed the leadership, she just does it. It doesn't mean you are power hungry or want to be the top. It means you can't help it but lead when there is a need. I don't see that in RP. [and before footy runs in and labels me as a Masih supporter, I don't think she is mature enough to lead a revolution, but she is fearless, instinctive, and effective, and in short an assest]
And of course, the elephant in the room is still there; two of them in fact. First, if RP's last name wasn't Pahlavi, would you and others be still supporting him? If you are honest with yourself, then the answer is a simple no. If the answer is in fact that he is in discussion because of his last name, then what's the point of discussing his merits, because that's not why he is being discussed.
Second, if he is in the discussion because of his father and grandfather and his last name, then exactly what type of constitutional monarchy does he want us to return to? His father/grandfather type? He never answers that, but I hope he knows and that you all know/acknowledge that that wasn't democratic, that there was absolutely zero political freedom and freedom of expression under his father's rule. Or do you disagree?
I wish it worked that way. But we know first-hand that it doesn't.
As for the point above, there is no contradiction, and I thought it would be obvious. The Nostalgia for Pahlavis is simply due to the dark period that we're going through. In other words, the support for a possible return to Pahlavi rule shouldn't be taken as a credit to RP or his father/grandfather, but as a testament of how terrible things are now. That's why I wouldn't consider it true support, because a bar of being better than IR is indeed a very low bar.
Opposition to RP or Pahlavis is not limited to IR and MEK or leftists as you suggest; many democracy-seeking Iranians oppose a return to monarchy or RP as well. To label such opposition as MEK or IR is at best simplistic, and certainly not in line with the spirit of tolerance that I opened with above. Because I do believe you are to be a tolerant person, I'm gonna take that comment in jest
I do not have a bias against Pahlavis. I dislike quite a bit of what they did in the past. To say that I'm biased against them is like saying that you and I are biased against IR. Bias is dislike for no good reason. Much like we both dislike IR for valid reasons, I also dislike the Pahlavi's rule (particularly MRP) for reasons that I consider valid. You may disagree with me, but I consider those reasons legitimate. The main reason is that I see MRP, his actions, his arrogance, and his lack of statesmanship, the main reason we have had to go through the hell that is IR.
I'm sorry but I don't buy this, and that is the main source of concern for me, for two reasons. First, he has taken every action he could to be a king. He's sworn as one. To say he doesn't want to be one just seems to be disingenuous. At best it can be taken as "I want to be the king, only if the people want me to be one". If that's the case he should just say that because at its worst, this scenario sounds eerily similar to 57.
Second, to say I don't want to be the king but if people insist I will oblige, even if honest is a dangerous attitude. Read Jacinda Ardern's resignation note. One should put oneself in the leadership position, particularly leadership of a country so entrenched in problems as Iran is, only and only if one's every bone and cell wants it and seeks it, not because people dump it on you. Compare it with Masih. When she talks you can see that will and passion in her words, that she is all in. She doesn't wait to be asked to lead, to be bestowed the leadership, she just does it. It doesn't mean you are power hungry or want to be the top. It means you can't help it but lead when there is a need. I don't see that in RP. [and before footy runs in and labels me as a Masih supporter, I don't think she is mature enough to lead a revolution, but she is fearless, instinctive, and effective, and in short an assest]
And of course, the elephant in the room is still there; two of them in fact. First, if RP's last name wasn't Pahlavi, would you and others be still supporting him? If you are honest with yourself, then the answer is a simple no. If the answer is in fact that he is in discussion because of his last name, then what's the point of discussing his merits, because that's not why he is being discussed.
Second, if he is in the discussion because of his father and grandfather and his last name, then exactly what type of constitutional monarchy does he want us to return to? His father/grandfather type? He never answers that, but I hope he knows and that you all know/acknowledge that that wasn't democratic, that there was absolutely zero political freedom and freedom of expression under his father's rule. Or do you disagree?
I wish it worked that way. But we know first-hand that it doesn't.
Likes:
IEI
