An example of the many people who have a more legitimate claim to leadership than RP. Who knows, may be if you Monarchists do a DNA analysis you will find the 1/16 or whatever amount of Royal blood you are looking for.
Iranian Dissidents Asking Aid from Bush
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 31, 2005
WASHINGTON - An Iranian dissident says he wants President Bush to clearly state that America "respects and would welcome" a new elected leadership of Iran if a movement to change the regime through nonviolent action succeeds.
In an interview yesterday with The New York Sun, Ghassem Sholeh Sadi said the movement inside Iran pushing for a constitutional referendum was debating the best strategy for the months leading up to June 17, when presidential elections are scheduled. Mr. Sholeh Sadi spoke to the Sun from Paris after arriving there from Tehran in February.
Until now, the plan laid out by most of the student groups calls for a passive boycott of the election, with supporters avoiding the polls. This tack was tried last February after most of the reformist legislators inside the Majlis were barred from running for office.
But Mr. Sholeh Sadi said the opposition is considering a more daring tactic: street protests in major cities in the hopes of bringing the government to a halt. "There are two major ideas being debated," he said. "Some groups support the idea of boycotting the elections. But after the events in Kyrgyzstan, there is an idea to try to turn the election into a referendum and uprising. This could snowball. In Bishkek, it started with 1,000 people, then the number got much bigger. In Iran, the number is much higher. We could start with a few but then get millions."
The Bush administration so far has been cool on the referendum movement in Iran, which the Sun first reported in December. To start, the online petition for the referendum, at the Web site www.60000000.com, has only garnered a little more than 35,000 signatures to date. At the same time, the State Department recently granted a visa to one of its leaders, Mohsen Sazegara, a founder of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who arrived here this week to begin a three-month residency with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Like many of the leaders of the referendum movement in Iran, Mr. Sholeh Sadi was an early supporter of Ayatollah Khomeini. He even served in the parliament between 1989 and 1997, before the election of President Khatami, who promised but failed to deliver more political freedoms. We were supporting freedom and democracy in 1979," Mr. Sholeh Sadi said. "This has been diverted, the cause has been diverted. Our security forces are supposed to bring security and peace to the country, not a force of oppression and not for killing the people."
While a member of parliament, Mr. Sholeh Sadi was critical of policies of unofficial prisons and gave speeches blasting the justice ministry for their arbitrary detentions. In 1999, then a professor of political science at the University of Tehran, he wrote an article for Khordad newspaper broaching the government's policy of disappearing dissidents in what are called "unofficial prisons."
Mr. Sholeh Sadi crossed a line in 2002 when he wrote an open letter to Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini publicly refusing to recognize his religious authority. Its opening lines pointedly left out the honorific "Ayatollah." "If you really possess the conditions of religious authority, among which are the conditions of religious scholarship and justice seeking, then I will choose you," Mr. Sholeh Sadi wrote. "But I have my doubts concerning you."
The letter compelled the Islamic Republic to begin pressing a variety of charges against Mr. Sholeh Sadi, who briefly left Iran for Europe after publication of the letter. When he returned to Iran, he was arrested and spent time in the infamous Evin prison, where he said yesterday he was beaten and suffered broken bones near his neck. "Most of my friends told me to pipe down. I am charged with taking actions against the internal security of the country, administering propaganda. Too many charges to name."
Nonetheless, he said he plans to return to Tehran next month. In the interview yesterday, he said President Bush's recent statements of support for the opposition inside his country. But he was also critical. "On two occasions in his inaugural and State of the Union address, Mr. Bush gave Iran a high place of importance. But myself, as one of the leading figures in the opposition, I have seen no deed. I have heard words but no deeds from the administration."
He also criticized what he said was an inconsistency of rhetoric between the State Department and the White House. "There needs to be a unified message to support us." He recommended the State Department issue more visas for opposition leaders to visit America, but did not say that he wanted any money from the administration.
One reason for the inconsistencies in America's Iran policy is its support for European-led negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Mr. Sholeh Sadi said yesterday that it was wrong to assume most Iranians supported the Mullah's quest for nuclear weapons.
"The reason is that if the leaders get the nuclear weapon, then no domestic development would be possible," he said. "If they have nuclear weapon, they will close the doors to all freedoms of the people. The fact is, if the regime is in possession of nuclear weapon, our possibilities for changes become almost impossible."
Mr. Sholeh Sadi said he sees two possibilities for his country now. "I see the situation in the region to be pregnant for two kinds of developments, a velvet revolution like Ukraine or Georgia - or now in Kyrgyzstan - even what happened in Poland or many other places could happen," he said. "But I also see a possible military intervention by America."
Iranian Dissidents Asking Aid from Bush
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 31, 2005
WASHINGTON - An Iranian dissident says he wants President Bush to clearly state that America "respects and would welcome" a new elected leadership of Iran if a movement to change the regime through nonviolent action succeeds.
In an interview yesterday with The New York Sun, Ghassem Sholeh Sadi said the movement inside Iran pushing for a constitutional referendum was debating the best strategy for the months leading up to June 17, when presidential elections are scheduled. Mr. Sholeh Sadi spoke to the Sun from Paris after arriving there from Tehran in February.
Until now, the plan laid out by most of the student groups calls for a passive boycott of the election, with supporters avoiding the polls. This tack was tried last February after most of the reformist legislators inside the Majlis were barred from running for office.
But Mr. Sholeh Sadi said the opposition is considering a more daring tactic: street protests in major cities in the hopes of bringing the government to a halt. "There are two major ideas being debated," he said. "Some groups support the idea of boycotting the elections. But after the events in Kyrgyzstan, there is an idea to try to turn the election into a referendum and uprising. This could snowball. In Bishkek, it started with 1,000 people, then the number got much bigger. In Iran, the number is much higher. We could start with a few but then get millions."
The Bush administration so far has been cool on the referendum movement in Iran, which the Sun first reported in December. To start, the online petition for the referendum, at the Web site www.60000000.com, has only garnered a little more than 35,000 signatures to date. At the same time, the State Department recently granted a visa to one of its leaders, Mohsen Sazegara, a founder of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who arrived here this week to begin a three-month residency with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Like many of the leaders of the referendum movement in Iran, Mr. Sholeh Sadi was an early supporter of Ayatollah Khomeini. He even served in the parliament between 1989 and 1997, before the election of President Khatami, who promised but failed to deliver more political freedoms. We were supporting freedom and democracy in 1979," Mr. Sholeh Sadi said. "This has been diverted, the cause has been diverted. Our security forces are supposed to bring security and peace to the country, not a force of oppression and not for killing the people."
While a member of parliament, Mr. Sholeh Sadi was critical of policies of unofficial prisons and gave speeches blasting the justice ministry for their arbitrary detentions. In 1999, then a professor of political science at the University of Tehran, he wrote an article for Khordad newspaper broaching the government's policy of disappearing dissidents in what are called "unofficial prisons."
Mr. Sholeh Sadi crossed a line in 2002 when he wrote an open letter to Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini publicly refusing to recognize his religious authority. Its opening lines pointedly left out the honorific "Ayatollah." "If you really possess the conditions of religious authority, among which are the conditions of religious scholarship and justice seeking, then I will choose you," Mr. Sholeh Sadi wrote. "But I have my doubts concerning you."
The letter compelled the Islamic Republic to begin pressing a variety of charges against Mr. Sholeh Sadi, who briefly left Iran for Europe after publication of the letter. When he returned to Iran, he was arrested and spent time in the infamous Evin prison, where he said yesterday he was beaten and suffered broken bones near his neck. "Most of my friends told me to pipe down. I am charged with taking actions against the internal security of the country, administering propaganda. Too many charges to name."
Nonetheless, he said he plans to return to Tehran next month. In the interview yesterday, he said President Bush's recent statements of support for the opposition inside his country. But he was also critical. "On two occasions in his inaugural and State of the Union address, Mr. Bush gave Iran a high place of importance. But myself, as one of the leading figures in the opposition, I have seen no deed. I have heard words but no deeds from the administration."
He also criticized what he said was an inconsistency of rhetoric between the State Department and the White House. "There needs to be a unified message to support us." He recommended the State Department issue more visas for opposition leaders to visit America, but did not say that he wanted any money from the administration.
One reason for the inconsistencies in America's Iran policy is its support for European-led negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Mr. Sholeh Sadi said yesterday that it was wrong to assume most Iranians supported the Mullah's quest for nuclear weapons.
"The reason is that if the leaders get the nuclear weapon, then no domestic development would be possible," he said. "If they have nuclear weapon, they will close the doors to all freedoms of the people. The fact is, if the regime is in possession of nuclear weapon, our possibilities for changes become almost impossible."
Mr. Sholeh Sadi said he sees two possibilities for his country now. "I see the situation in the region to be pregnant for two kinds of developments, a velvet revolution like Ukraine or Georgia - or now in Kyrgyzstan - even what happened in Poland or many other places could happen," he said. "But I also see a possible military intervention by America."
Ba dorood:
Oldfaraz, so based on what you have so far posted, you are looking at the issue SUBJECTIVLY not objectively.
You seem to have problem with Pahlavi family but you have not said anything about Mashrootiat, am I correct?
You see, you stated asking me questions but never bothered to acknowledge the replies and answers I provided. Not surprised!!!
Your comment about Royal blood was also answered yet you are STOCK on it, WHY?!!
If it is not to looking at the issue subjectively then what else could it be?
P.S.
Fasten your seatbelt before the take off!!!
Oldfaraz, so based on what you have so far posted, you are looking at the issue SUBJECTIVLY not objectively.
You seem to have problem with Pahlavi family but you have not said anything about Mashrootiat, am I correct?
You see, you stated asking me questions but never bothered to acknowledge the replies and answers I provided. Not surprised!!!
Your comment about Royal blood was also answered yet you are STOCK on it, WHY?!!
If it is not to looking at the issue subjectively then what else could it be?
P.S.
Fasten your seatbelt before the take off!!!
Lets get this straight. The only claim RP has to anything is that his grandfather was a thug installed by the brits. Now if that is enough for claiming leadership, be my guest. As a matter of fact most Iranian Kings were either thugs or related to them.
As for Monarchy, I said it once before and I will repeat it again, but you have to open your mind and THINK. If the position is totally powerless, then why have it? If the position has any power, then having a hereditary position with actual power is, by definition, anti-democratic. I am not sure how you do not get this point.
And please do not start with claiming the position will be elected or whatever. If that is the case, then it is not Monarchy anymore. I do not know why you insist on calling it a monarchy.
I do know however, why the monarchist have all of a sudden turned liberal democrats and, in every other sentence, talk about the people's will. I will post the real reason when I have a bit more time.
As responding to your post, I will only respond when I feel there is an actual poit to be made, or there is something to be conveyed. When the posters get stuck in cyclical reasoning, I am afraid I have better things to attend to. I am sorry if you felt slighted.
As for my problem with RP, it is actually a problem with all those people who, after all our nation has been through, still insist on having a father figure, whether it is an Ayatollah or a shahollah, or a two-bit thug. If it was one of the Qajars, I would have the same problem.
May be you can explain why you are stuck with RP and yet do not reason where his claim originates from and how it squares with the liberal-democratic values you claim to aspire to.
May be you should really think about why you refer to our nation as Yateem, as though it is a minor child that does not know what is good for it and it needs somebody else, a father-figure, to look out for it.
p.s. Is your p.s. coment an IN joke or what? Chalk me up as ignorant because I do not get it.
As for Monarchy, I said it once before and I will repeat it again, but you have to open your mind and THINK. If the position is totally powerless, then why have it? If the position has any power, then having a hereditary position with actual power is, by definition, anti-democratic. I am not sure how you do not get this point.
And please do not start with claiming the position will be elected or whatever. If that is the case, then it is not Monarchy anymore. I do not know why you insist on calling it a monarchy.
I do know however, why the monarchist have all of a sudden turned liberal democrats and, in every other sentence, talk about the people's will. I will post the real reason when I have a bit more time.
As responding to your post, I will only respond when I feel there is an actual poit to be made, or there is something to be conveyed. When the posters get stuck in cyclical reasoning, I am afraid I have better things to attend to. I am sorry if you felt slighted.
As for my problem with RP, it is actually a problem with all those people who, after all our nation has been through, still insist on having a father figure, whether it is an Ayatollah or a shahollah, or a two-bit thug. If it was one of the Qajars, I would have the same problem.
May be you can explain why you are stuck with RP and yet do not reason where his claim originates from and how it squares with the liberal-democratic values you claim to aspire to.
May be you should really think about why you refer to our nation as Yateem, as though it is a minor child that does not know what is good for it and it needs somebody else, a father-figure, to look out for it.
p.s. Is your p.s. coment an IN joke or what? Chalk me up as ignorant because I do not get it.
Ba dorood:
You are out of line!!!
You tell me to open my eyes yet you seem to have not read or even COMPREHENDED my responses to your CLAIM about Monarch's role in the system.
As I said, your issue is SUBJECTIVE and not objective thus you can not separate system issues with PERSONAL issues.
I keep talking about the system but you going to Pahlavi to prove your point.
Yes, I will chalk you up as ignorant about this issue as you suggested.
I have shared my understanding of the system in great length and if you refuse to EVEN acknowledge my responses then I do not see how I can have a healthy exchange with you.
I will REPEAT my answer to you AGAIN, JUST MAY BE AND JUST MAY BE this time you would READ it!!!
Nah, I don’t have time to repeat something for you that I am sure will be over your head. I said this as you seem to repeating your comment and ignore my reply to it.
GOOD LUCK!
You are out of line!!!
You tell me to open my eyes yet you seem to have not read or even COMPREHENDED my responses to your CLAIM about Monarch's role in the system.
As I said, your issue is SUBJECTIVE and not objective thus you can not separate system issues with PERSONAL issues.
I keep talking about the system but you going to Pahlavi to prove your point.
Yes, I will chalk you up as ignorant about this issue as you suggested.
I have shared my understanding of the system in great length and if you refuse to EVEN acknowledge my responses then I do not see how I can have a healthy exchange with you.
I will REPEAT my answer to you AGAIN, JUST MAY BE AND JUST MAY BE this time you would READ it!!!
Nah, I don’t have time to repeat something for you that I am sure will be over your head. I said this as you seem to repeating your comment and ignore my reply to it.
GOOD LUCK!
It is so sad to see that one of the greatest leaders in modern Iranian history is referred to as a thug. What a shame.
Maybe you should revisit the history books and look over the Qajar's disaster and objectively monitor the progress made during Reza Shah's era.
Obviously, history has thought us nothing.
Maybe you should revisit the history books and look over the Qajar's disaster and objectively monitor the progress made during Reza Shah's era.
Obviously, history has thought us nothing.
Ba dorood:
Tajrish, do you know what POLITICAL FOSSIL means?
What I have exchanged with Old Faraz so far has been on Monarchy issue and not in general but every time it ended up with Pahlavi era.
It did not end there but ended up in miss-statement such as referring to Reza Shah Bozorg as.... What can I say?! If you read history books of schools being taught under Islamic Rip-off, you would not be surprised to read from a 24 years old who could not accept that Reza Shah administered an educational revolution in Iran (i.e. Dabestani instead of Maktab and University of Tehran).
Besides Islamic Rip-off's TAHREEF of our history, a few POLITICAL FOSSILS who are stock in 1953 (for example) that contribute to this TAHREEF.
As a political activist, I have many of these experiences. One of the great examples is Borgheie if you know him?!
Tajrish, do you know what POLITICAL FOSSIL means?
What I have exchanged with Old Faraz so far has been on Monarchy issue and not in general but every time it ended up with Pahlavi era.
It did not end there but ended up in miss-statement such as referring to Reza Shah Bozorg as.... What can I say?! If you read history books of schools being taught under Islamic Rip-off, you would not be surprised to read from a 24 years old who could not accept that Reza Shah administered an educational revolution in Iran (i.e. Dabestani instead of Maktab and University of Tehran).
Besides Islamic Rip-off's TAHREEF of our history, a few POLITICAL FOSSILS who are stock in 1953 (for example) that contribute to this TAHREEF.
As a political activist, I have many of these experiences. One of the great examples is Borgheie if you know him?!
Deal Oldman:
with all due respect, I think monarchist are the fossils who are stuck in the past. The world has moved on, and you still want to go back to a glory that never was and was a pure fabrication. Please understand that your nostalgia for a bygone era, which never was useful in the first place, does not form a valid basis for a government system.
Those who have read my posts, know that monarchists and RP are not the only topics of my posts. I just find them the most redicilous and the most dangerous.
Regards;
Faraz
with all due respect, I think monarchist are the fossils who are stuck in the past. The world has moved on, and you still want to go back to a glory that never was and was a pure fabrication. Please understand that your nostalgia for a bygone era, which never was useful in the first place, does not form a valid basis for a government system.
Those who have read my posts, know that monarchists and RP are not the only topics of my posts. I just find them the most redicilous and the most dangerous.
Regards;
Faraz
Ba dorood:
The point about referendum is that it is the democratic way out of the mess. Any other way would result in far more bloodshed.
Even if this is a game created by Islamic Rip-off then please note that this is a design based on the theory by Saeed Imaami!!!
Meyti says we have a lots of politicians who could run the country. I am sorry but has Islamic Rip-off left any of them alive?
Politicians need to have political lives and experiences before be the lead. Is there anyone out there?
When you look back in our history, during Reza Shah, we had the likes of Mosadeq but do we have ANYONE half as good as him?
I am sorry but I do not see anyone qualified. If there is anyone, please make sure that the person is as far as away form Islamic Rip-off.
I can not say that we have anyone left in Iran whom we could count on. The last one was late Forouhar.
The point about referendum is that it is the democratic way out of the mess. Any other way would result in far more bloodshed.
Even if this is a game created by Islamic Rip-off then please note that this is a design based on the theory by Saeed Imaami!!!
Meyti says we have a lots of politicians who could run the country. I am sorry but has Islamic Rip-off left any of them alive?
Politicians need to have political lives and experiences before be the lead. Is there anyone out there?
When you look back in our history, during Reza Shah, we had the likes of Mosadeq but do we have ANYONE half as good as him?
I am sorry but I do not see anyone qualified. If there is anyone, please make sure that the person is as far as away form Islamic Rip-off.
I can not say that we have anyone left in Iran whom we could count on. The last one was late Forouhar.
Ba dorood:
Ey Baabaa, after all these, you are not sure if Leili was male or female?!!
You claim that Paadeshaahi Paarlemaani is out dated but fail to READ what I have posted REPEATEDLY and here it is in bold for you AGAIN:
THREE OF THE TOP FIVE MOST DEMOCRATIC NATIONS IN 2004 HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY AS THEIR GOVERNING SYSTEM.
Now, go and tell that to the committee that chose them and as well to the nations who have such system.
Based on your lack of paying attention (must have missed my comment as it is above before too!), you need to REVIEW your learning of what is the definition of fossil.
One example is, the ones who are stock in 1953 issue are considered as FOSEEL SIAASI.
While you are at it, see if you can find definition for political life (do not mix it with what journalist use).
Ey Baabaa, after all these, you are not sure if Leili was male or female?!!
You claim that Paadeshaahi Paarlemaani is out dated but fail to READ what I have posted REPEATEDLY and here it is in bold for you AGAIN:
THREE OF THE TOP FIVE MOST DEMOCRATIC NATIONS IN 2004 HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY AS THEIR GOVERNING SYSTEM.
Now, go and tell that to the committee that chose them and as well to the nations who have such system.
Based on your lack of paying attention (must have missed my comment as it is above before too!), you need to REVIEW your learning of what is the definition of fossil.
One example is, the ones who are stock in 1953 issue are considered as FOSEEL SIAASI.
While you are at it, see if you can find definition for political life (do not mix it with what journalist use).
Oldman, you keep repeating that the “three of top five democracies have constitutional monarchies as their system of government” (by the way we are not blind, we can see the normal size fonts, using the largest fonts do not prove your point), last time I checked the Monarchs in those system do not govern anything. They just spent taxpayers’ money; their roles are formalities and creating scandals (as the case is in England). There are major debates going on in those European countries as to the need and justification for existence of Kings and Queens who do not do anything constructive (i.e. if you remove them, nobody will notice their absence). Polls show that ordinary people do not want to shoulder the exorbitant expenses of such system.
Therefore, first, why would people in their right mind shoulder expenses of a position that would not yield anything? Second, why would people (who have been bitten by the system you are advocating) opt for a system that has proved in the past to end up in dictatorship?
P.S. it is interesting that you have kind words for Dr. Mossadegh, a man who was prosecuted by Reza Khan and his son. A government which prosecutes someone like Mossadegh does not any place in Iran in my book.
Therefore, first, why would people in their right mind shoulder expenses of a position that would not yield anything? Second, why would people (who have been bitten by the system you are advocating) opt for a system that has proved in the past to end up in dictatorship?
P.S. it is interesting that you have kind words for Dr. Mossadegh, a man who was prosecuted by Reza Khan and his son. A government which prosecutes someone like Mossadegh does not any place in Iran in my book.
I f Mossadegh came about now, I who am neither Shahi nor IRI supporter, would shoot him. He was one of the biggest Vatan foroosh in our history. We were damn lucky he was thrown into the toilet of history or who knows what indignities he would subject us to. Even now we are experiencing the repurcussions of his satanic influence.
And before anyone says anything, just think, what would have happened if Hitler was overthrown immediately after he seized power? Would the world not have been a better place and 75 million lives saved? Or as our 'learned' (yeah, right, very learned, my a**e) friends would say what a great man he was and what a shame that he was overthrown. We had the beginning of another Hitler in Iran, and I thank my stars every single day that he was anhilated.
I don't really care to discuss this anymore as I have absolutely no interest or respect for any one who is his supporter nor am I interested in their opinion. So if they want to bark like mad dogs, it is Ok with me, I shall just ignore them like I would ignore a rabid mad dog.
And before anyone says anything, just think, what would have happened if Hitler was overthrown immediately after he seized power? Would the world not have been a better place and 75 million lives saved? Or as our 'learned' (yeah, right, very learned, my a**e) friends would say what a great man he was and what a shame that he was overthrown. We had the beginning of another Hitler in Iran, and I thank my stars every single day that he was anhilated.
I don't really care to discuss this anymore as I have absolutely no interest or respect for any one who is his supporter nor am I interested in their opinion. So if they want to bark like mad dogs, it is Ok with me, I shall just ignore them like I would ignore a rabid mad dog.
Ba dorood:
Iranpak, I replied with such font, as Old Farza seemed to have missed it. It was not for others that I was using large font. Nevertheless, good to know that you speak for EVERYBODY here!! "WE ARE NOT BLIND".
Last time you checked on Monarchy in Europe?!! Please enlighten us with HOW you did this?
I have done my share of providing information about the system and you keep saying Leili Mard Bood.
Dr. Mosadeq and Pahlavis are well described by Mirfetros whom you don't know.
I referred you to his books and to reply to your comment, I still say READ HIS BOOK.
The relationships between Mosadeq & Pahlavi & the nation are not as simple for one to PASS JUDGMENT one way or the other.
Dr. Mosadeq whom I have great admiration for had mistakes too. His cabinet was changed 84 times over 2.5 years. He too had mistakes but overall, I agree with Mirfetros' assessment of these gentlemen to have served Iran best that they could with WHAT they had in hands.
P.S.
In due time, Iranians will learn about Mashrootiat and then we shall see how many will vote for this system, right?! For now, I like to create an environment that YOU can vote against Mashrootiat FREELY. Can you promise me the same vise versa?
Iranpak, I replied with such font, as Old Farza seemed to have missed it. It was not for others that I was using large font. Nevertheless, good to know that you speak for EVERYBODY here!! "WE ARE NOT BLIND".
Last time you checked on Monarchy in Europe?!! Please enlighten us with HOW you did this?
I have done my share of providing information about the system and you keep saying Leili Mard Bood.
Dr. Mosadeq and Pahlavis are well described by Mirfetros whom you don't know.
I referred you to his books and to reply to your comment, I still say READ HIS BOOK.
The relationships between Mosadeq & Pahlavi & the nation are not as simple for one to PASS JUDGMENT one way or the other.
Dr. Mosadeq whom I have great admiration for had mistakes too. His cabinet was changed 84 times over 2.5 years. He too had mistakes but overall, I agree with Mirfetros' assessment of these gentlemen to have served Iran best that they could with WHAT they had in hands.
P.S.
In due time, Iranians will learn about Mashrootiat and then we shall see how many will vote for this system, right?! For now, I like to create an environment that YOU can vote against Mashrootiat FREELY. Can you promise me the same vise versa?
Dear Old-man:
For your infomation, I am not blind either. I just do not agree with your views. As Iraanpak said, using large fonts do not prove anything.
You seem to miss the point again. So I repeat it:
If the Monarch position has no power, why have it? If he has any power, how do you reconcile hereditary (non-elected) powers with a democracy? The examples you keep refering to, the monarchs have no power. Over and over again, I have asked you and your fellow monarchists to provide some tangible benefits of monarchy vs a republic and you have not done so. All you have mentioned is some vague notion of stability and corruption which does not square with our history. And in case you have missed it, our history with Monarchy has been a little less than ideal.
Feel free to answer, but small fonts will do, thank you.
For your infomation, I am not blind either. I just do not agree with your views. As Iraanpak said, using large fonts do not prove anything.
You seem to miss the point again. So I repeat it:
If the Monarch position has no power, why have it? If he has any power, how do you reconcile hereditary (non-elected) powers with a democracy? The examples you keep refering to, the monarchs have no power. Over and over again, I have asked you and your fellow monarchists to provide some tangible benefits of monarchy vs a republic and you have not done so. All you have mentioned is some vague notion of stability and corruption which does not square with our history. And in case you have missed it, our history with Monarchy has been a little less than ideal.
Feel free to answer, but small fonts will do, thank you.