Okaaaay.
Originally Posted by spot
What a lot of questions. Perhaps if I break them into associated groups and answer each in turn? I'll start with this one because I can do it more easily than the others.
Just bear in mind I'm answering the question as set, and don't come back with a reply that changes the conditions you initially imposed.
A binding UN treaty signed by all countries establishing a new permanent Human Right to enter and leave any country indefinitely without a visa for the purposes of recreation, residence and work, to be subject solely to local national taxation and with access to local social security (which means chiefly the health and pensions system, perhaps after a brief probationary period of local tax contributions).
Tourism. Thats what were talking about here ?
If it is that sounds fine. People should feel free to travel without interference unless they have a serious criminal background.
And since mere International Law has been inadequate to enforce the rule that no country may interfere in the internal affairs of any other country, especially when engaged in Regime Change, without the guaranteed subsequent accountability of their political leadership at an International Court of Justice, we might get that firmed up by a second binding UN treaty signed by all countries at the same time since it's just as important and equally necessary in order for the first one to be effective. The only legitimate use of physical force within a given country is that of the country's government, other than to internationally enforce the Treaty against Genocide or within the legally defined confines of a Just War.
Im all for no wars. Big believer here in not killing eachother. Love it !
Problem is the war mongers that find war a perfectly reasonable and manageable solution to what ails them. Were not that evolved yet Im afraid. Thats the long and short of it.
Now, I'd agree with you there will be an outcry from the greedier wealthier more selfish sectors of humanity but you did very carefully include the condition that the convictions of "the majority of the people of the world" should be served by the answer, and it's what I've done. The majority of the people of the world would be overjoyed. The redistribution of capital internationally would be accelerated dramatically
Redistribution of capital....could be a problem. People/industry/corporations should share their wealth with less fortunate neighbors/countries/civilizations ? What exactly are we talking about when we say redistribution of wealth ?
and people could more easily establish themselves within a political environment they were most comfortable with. Families which actually want to feel safe and protected can go to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example, which they currently can't, while families with a fixation on Disney and little concern for their personal safety can move to Florida.
Ok. For all of our evilness Disney World is overflowing with tourists from all over the globe. (Frances Disney doesnt count, its a farce) The foreigners come here and are treated with respect and friendliness and are welcome to enjoy all of our amenities with hospitality. Cant say I know what Americans are treated like in Tehran at the moment. Just a guess but landing your ass in prison for 12 years might be not surprising.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why, as a solution, it's unviable. Not just personally unacceptable, just unviable, since viable was your word for what I was set to achieve. If you don't think I've included sufficient detail then say that too, though I can't see anything lacking just looking at it.
Your solution is actually aligned with what I would wish to prevail. The problem is getting everyone else on board. For instance your anti Americanism is a bit of an obstacle. In order for peace to exist I think its important to as I mentioned previously have a more balanced and tolerant view and outlook on people in general.
If you were to visit lets say Disneyland Id think you yourself would enjoy the experience more if you didnt despise Mickey Mouse.
We as your hosts would be more receptive to your presence if we werent made to feel shame for existing. A little give, a little take.
Id like to understand what your responsibility is in making this work and if you have reparations to make for your countrymens transgressions.
If you choose to once again blame America for all of the worlds faults Ill be forced to dismiss you as irrelevant. I have litte tolerance for narrow minded thinkers unable to think beyond their own bias.
Its not personal just a waste of time for me.
Iran's Quest For Freedom
Iran's Quest For Freedom
I AM AWESOME MAN
Iran's Quest For Freedom
spot;1213052 wrote:
A binding UN treaty signed by all countries establishing a new permanent Human Right for those with no violent criminal record to enter and leave any country indefinitely without a visa for the purposes of recreation, residence and work, to be subject solely to local national taxation and with access to local social security (which means chiefly the health and pensions system, perhaps after a brief probationary period of local tax contributions).
And since mere International Law has been inadequate to enforce the rule that no country may interfere in the internal affairs of any other country, especially when engaged in Regime Change, without the guaranteed subsequent accountability of their political leadership at an International Court of Justice, we might get that firmed up by a second binding UN treaty signed by all countries at the same time since it's just as important and equally necessary in order for the first one to be effective. The only legitimate use of physical force within a given country is that of the country's government, other than to internationally enforce the Treaty against Genocide or within the legally defined confines of a Just War.
Now, I'd agree with you there will be an outcry from the greedier wealthier more selfish sectors of humanity but you did very carefully include the condition that the convictions of "the majority of the people of the world" should be served by the answer, and it's what I've done. The majority of the people of the world would be overjoyed. The redistribution of capital internationally would be accelerated dramatically and people could more easily establish themselves within a political environment they were most comfortable with. Families which actually want to feel safe and protected can go to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example, which they currently can't, while families with a fixation on Disney and little concern for their personal safety can move to Florida.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why, as a solution, it's unviable. Not just personally unacceptable, just unviable, since viable was your word for what I was set to achieve. If you don't think I've included sufficient detail then say that too, though I can't see anything lacking just looking at it.
Countries can be as culturally diverse as they like under this scheme. Popular ones will attract more people, unpopular ones will lose them. People will move to where they feel most satisfied by their environment. And when Bangladesh disappears into the sea in sixty years there'll be no frantic begging for succour by refugees.
OOOH I like this!! It might be interesting to wonder how anyone's going to get all countries to sign a binding UN treaty of course, or to know who's going to police such a treaty if it is signed. But that's just technicalities.
I note that different countries are going to be allowed to use legitimate force (definition?) within their own borders, but this doesn't appear to extend to closing those borders - which is good, unless of course you're locked up.
Under the Spot New World Plan, people could for instance go into Iran, in an individual non interfering way, and tell women and dissidents that it's okay to leave the country - oh, hold on.. it's illegal there to speak to women or to disagree, so countries where only selective personal freedom is currently allowed could legally continue that, as it's an internal thing - and use legitimate force (definition?) to imprison or otherwise confine anyone who disagreed, might disagree, or is female, before they could leave.
Any country with social security benefits would be flooded with people from countries without them? So those paying tax in the countries with benefits would then end up paying so much they'd have to leave and set up somewhere else. So without a workforce, some currently rich countries would become mega poor.. and then the new rich countries would repeat the cycle....
In fact, anyone with any work ethic or enterprising spirit or ability to postpone pleasure to plan for the future - that is anyone who earned enough to become well off, would have any accumulated wealth stripped from them and given to anyone who didn't have much. This would include not just the destitute but also anyone with no work ethic, no enterprising spirit, no ability to postpone pleasure to plan for the future. Difficult to implement and enforce. And wait - didn't someone already try this... on kibbutzim and in Eastern Europe, and didn't it kind of fail? Everybody veged out - and another kind of lowest common denominator happened. Why be a doctor if you get the same for being a lifeguard on a beach? If the state drafts you, under the new Spot dispensation, you just leave and lie on a beach somewhere else... but this is a minor issue- it could be tweaked.
I love this Brave New World !!! I could travel round, with a bunch of aussie mates. I don't mind working or busking a bit but not so as it gets in the way of my leisure activites. I shall expect that some of the obscene wealth of the oil states will be redistributed to me which is much more equitable. Pass the soma!
A binding UN treaty signed by all countries establishing a new permanent Human Right for those with no violent criminal record to enter and leave any country indefinitely without a visa for the purposes of recreation, residence and work, to be subject solely to local national taxation and with access to local social security (which means chiefly the health and pensions system, perhaps after a brief probationary period of local tax contributions).
And since mere International Law has been inadequate to enforce the rule that no country may interfere in the internal affairs of any other country, especially when engaged in Regime Change, without the guaranteed subsequent accountability of their political leadership at an International Court of Justice, we might get that firmed up by a second binding UN treaty signed by all countries at the same time since it's just as important and equally necessary in order for the first one to be effective. The only legitimate use of physical force within a given country is that of the country's government, other than to internationally enforce the Treaty against Genocide or within the legally defined confines of a Just War.
Now, I'd agree with you there will be an outcry from the greedier wealthier more selfish sectors of humanity but you did very carefully include the condition that the convictions of "the majority of the people of the world" should be served by the answer, and it's what I've done. The majority of the people of the world would be overjoyed. The redistribution of capital internationally would be accelerated dramatically and people could more easily establish themselves within a political environment they were most comfortable with. Families which actually want to feel safe and protected can go to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example, which they currently can't, while families with a fixation on Disney and little concern for their personal safety can move to Florida.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why, as a solution, it's unviable. Not just personally unacceptable, just unviable, since viable was your word for what I was set to achieve. If you don't think I've included sufficient detail then say that too, though I can't see anything lacking just looking at it.
Countries can be as culturally diverse as they like under this scheme. Popular ones will attract more people, unpopular ones will lose them. People will move to where they feel most satisfied by their environment. And when Bangladesh disappears into the sea in sixty years there'll be no frantic begging for succour by refugees.
OOOH I like this!! It might be interesting to wonder how anyone's going to get all countries to sign a binding UN treaty of course, or to know who's going to police such a treaty if it is signed. But that's just technicalities.
I note that different countries are going to be allowed to use legitimate force (definition?) within their own borders, but this doesn't appear to extend to closing those borders - which is good, unless of course you're locked up.
Under the Spot New World Plan, people could for instance go into Iran, in an individual non interfering way, and tell women and dissidents that it's okay to leave the country - oh, hold on.. it's illegal there to speak to women or to disagree, so countries where only selective personal freedom is currently allowed could legally continue that, as it's an internal thing - and use legitimate force (definition?) to imprison or otherwise confine anyone who disagreed, might disagree, or is female, before they could leave.
Any country with social security benefits would be flooded with people from countries without them? So those paying tax in the countries with benefits would then end up paying so much they'd have to leave and set up somewhere else. So without a workforce, some currently rich countries would become mega poor.. and then the new rich countries would repeat the cycle....
In fact, anyone with any work ethic or enterprising spirit or ability to postpone pleasure to plan for the future - that is anyone who earned enough to become well off, would have any accumulated wealth stripped from them and given to anyone who didn't have much. This would include not just the destitute but also anyone with no work ethic, no enterprising spirit, no ability to postpone pleasure to plan for the future. Difficult to implement and enforce. And wait - didn't someone already try this... on kibbutzim and in Eastern Europe, and didn't it kind of fail? Everybody veged out - and another kind of lowest common denominator happened. Why be a doctor if you get the same for being a lifeguard on a beach? If the state drafts you, under the new Spot dispensation, you just leave and lie on a beach somewhere else... but this is a minor issue- it could be tweaked.
I love this Brave New World !!! I could travel round, with a bunch of aussie mates. I don't mind working or busking a bit but not so as it gets in the way of my leisure activites. I shall expect that some of the obscene wealth of the oil states will be redistributed to me which is much more equitable. Pass the soma!
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Iran's Quest For Freedom
AussiePam;1213215 wrote: Under the Spot New World Plan, people could for instance go into Iran, in an individual non interfering way, and tell women and dissidents that it's okay to leave the country - oh, hold on.. it's illegal there to speak to women or to disagree,There's your problem when discussing these things - simple biased inaccuracy. An acquaintance of mine spent several months in Tehran last year. "it's illegal there to speak to women"? It's nothing of the sort, of course he talked to women. Of course he talked about the nature of Iranian society with them, and the state of the world, and the advantages and limitations of living under a theocratic government. People do already "go into Iran, in an individual non interfering way". I had a couple of pints with him earlier this week, I even had a chat with his dad too about travel broadening the mind.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Iran's Quest For Freedom
Nomad;1213210 wrote: [quote=spot]A binding UN treaty signed by all countries establishing a new permanent Human Right for those with no violent criminal record to enter and leave any country indefinitely without a visa for the purposes of recreation, residence and workTourism. Thats what were talking about here ?If it is that sounds fine. People should feel free to travel without interference unless they have a serious criminal background.[/QUOTE]Well, no, what it says is "recreation, residence and work". We have tourism to an extent already, the other two are severely restricted and they're what I'm proposing to open out. It's extending those two particular areas which achieve the capital redistribution I go on to.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Iran's Quest For Freedom
Nomad;1213210 wrote: We as your hosts would be more receptive to your presence if we werent made to feel shame for existing. A little give, a little take.It's the things you're collectively known for that trip you up. Yesterday's display of brute bloat, for example: Joey "Jaws" Chestnut ate 68 hot dogs in 10 minutes at the annual 4 July contest at Coney Island in New York, shattering his old record of 66. This year's contest was broadcast live on sports channel ESPN, and featured much of the fanfare usually reserved for professional sporting events. Mr Chestnut, who won his third straight title in a row, takes home $20,000 (£12,250) in prize money and the coveted Mustard Belt. His other world records include eating 5kg of macaroni and cheese in seven minutes. How can Americans face the world after encouraging something that obscene?
Here, since we're discussing Iran and everyone's saying how repressed the masses are, what do you make of this as a comparison?Today, police departments across the United States more closely resemble an occupying army than they do public servants responding to calls for help. Police officers can now be seen wearing helmets and body armor and carrying AR-15's, just to deliver simple warrants. The militarization of our police departments not only gives the appearance of a military dictatorship but places the public at great risk.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk- ... lice-State
Reading the entire set of examples given just adds conviction to the claim.
Nomad wrote: Id like to understand what your responsibility is in making this work and if you have reparations to make for your countrymens transgressions.UK foreign policy has marched in lockstep with US requirements for decades under every political party which has been in office. Ever since Harold Wilson stood his ground and refused to intervene in the Vietnamese Civil War. In terms of responsibility we could either say that the decision to invade the Middle East was made in the White House and followed in Downing Street, or that the decision was made in the Downing Street and followed in White House. Take your choice, which would your national pride prefer to believe? I assume we were following rather than dragging an unwilling Bush to political suicide and his country to economic ruin.
In either case what's needed is a British government, or a White House, which refuses to play these old tricks. It involves voting in a new party which promises to behave differently, not one of the old ones which continually commit these crimes. I'm voting for one, I hope you are too.
Here, since we're discussing Iran and everyone's saying how repressed the masses are, what do you make of this as a comparison?Today, police departments across the United States more closely resemble an occupying army than they do public servants responding to calls for help. Police officers can now be seen wearing helmets and body armor and carrying AR-15's, just to deliver simple warrants. The militarization of our police departments not only gives the appearance of a military dictatorship but places the public at great risk.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk- ... lice-State
Reading the entire set of examples given just adds conviction to the claim.
Nomad wrote: Id like to understand what your responsibility is in making this work and if you have reparations to make for your countrymens transgressions.UK foreign policy has marched in lockstep with US requirements for decades under every political party which has been in office. Ever since Harold Wilson stood his ground and refused to intervene in the Vietnamese Civil War. In terms of responsibility we could either say that the decision to invade the Middle East was made in the White House and followed in Downing Street, or that the decision was made in the Downing Street and followed in White House. Take your choice, which would your national pride prefer to believe? I assume we were following rather than dragging an unwilling Bush to political suicide and his country to economic ruin.
In either case what's needed is a British government, or a White House, which refuses to play these old tricks. It involves voting in a new party which promises to behave differently, not one of the old ones which continually commit these crimes. I'm voting for one, I hope you are too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Iran's Quest For Freedom
spot;1213219 wrote: There's your problem when discussing these things - simple biased inaccuracy. My mate Paddy spent several months in Tehran last year. "it's illegal there to speak to women"? It's nothing of the sort, of course he talked to women. Of course he talked about the nature of Iranian society with them, and the state of the world, and the advantages and limitations of living under a theocratic government. People do already "go into Iran, in an individual non interfering way". I had a couple of pints with him earlier this week, I even had a chat with his dad too about travel broadening the mind.
One lot of anecdotal evidence from your mate Paddy on one item has now somehow demolished my whole post. Not. I don't mind if you have a single fixed idea you continually want to enlighten us with - it's a fun idea - and I don't think you're going to do much harm to anyone promulgating it here. And the wider audience, to which you often allude, will also have our somewhat underwhelmed responses to consider along with your Plan.
One lot of anecdotal evidence from your mate Paddy on one item has now somehow demolished my whole post. Not. I don't mind if you have a single fixed idea you continually want to enlighten us with - it's a fun idea - and I don't think you're going to do much harm to anyone promulgating it here. And the wider audience, to which you often allude, will also have our somewhat underwhelmed responses to consider along with your Plan.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Iran's Quest For Freedom
AussiePam;1213224 wrote: One lot of anecdotal evidence from your mate on one item has now somehow demolished my whole post. Not.
Well, yes, it has rather. He's been there, he tells it like it is and it isn't "illegal there to speak to women or to disagree". The way you describe these places doesn't say a great deal about the way these places are. You dislike Islam, fine. You blacken Muslims without regard to the truth of what you claim, that's not fine.
As for my "Plan", as you called it, it's just a reasoned reply to Nomad's "Id really enjoy hearing in detail a viable solution", it's not like Truthbringer blatting away year after year in his write-only threads. It was a response.
Well, yes, it has rather. He's been there, he tells it like it is and it isn't "illegal there to speak to women or to disagree". The way you describe these places doesn't say a great deal about the way these places are. You dislike Islam, fine. You blacken Muslims without regard to the truth of what you claim, that's not fine.
As for my "Plan", as you called it, it's just a reasoned reply to Nomad's "Id really enjoy hearing in detail a viable solution", it's not like Truthbringer blatting away year after year in his write-only threads. It was a response.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Iran's Quest For Freedom
spot;1213226 wrote: Well, yes, it has rather. He's been there, he tells it like it is and it isn't "illegal there to speak to women or to disagree". The way you describe these places doesn't say a great deal about the way these places are. You dislike Islam, fine. You blacken Muslims without regard to the truth of that you claim, that's not fine.
As for my "Plan", as you called it, it's just a reasoned reply to Nomad's "Id really enjoy hearing in detail a viable solution", it's not like Truthbringer blatting away year after year in his write-only threads. It was a response.
Rubbish!!!
And I don't actually dislike Islam - only the more extremist fundamentalist interpretations of it, and feel the same way about the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism too. I value friendships with moderate Muslims, Jews and Christians.
As for para 2 of your response - I hadn't actually thought of the good Truthbringer, but hey...
As for my "Plan", as you called it, it's just a reasoned reply to Nomad's "Id really enjoy hearing in detail a viable solution", it's not like Truthbringer blatting away year after year in his write-only threads. It was a response.
Rubbish!!!
And I don't actually dislike Islam - only the more extremist fundamentalist interpretations of it, and feel the same way about the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism too. I value friendships with moderate Muslims, Jews and Christians.
As for para 2 of your response - I hadn't actually thought of the good Truthbringer, but hey...
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Iran's Quest For Freedom
AussiePam;1213229 wrote: Rubbish!!!
And I don't actually dislike Islam - only the more extremist fundamentalist interpretations of it, and feel the same way about the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism too. I value friendships with moderate Muslims, Jews and Christians.
So how do you boil a country of 70 million Muslims down to one in which it's "illegal there to speak to women or to disagree"? I honestly don't know how you can claim that and not see you're obviously incorrect. What would it take to get you to amend it?
And I don't actually dislike Islam - only the more extremist fundamentalist interpretations of it, and feel the same way about the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism too. I value friendships with moderate Muslims, Jews and Christians.
So how do you boil a country of 70 million Muslims down to one in which it's "illegal there to speak to women or to disagree"? I honestly don't know how you can claim that and not see you're obviously incorrect. What would it take to get you to amend it?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Iran's Quest For Freedom
spot;1213230 wrote: So how do you boil a country of 70 million Muslims down to one in which it's "illegal there to speak to women or to disagree"? I honestly don't know how you can claim that and not see you're obviously incorrect. What would it take to get you to amend it?
Attempting to focus attention off the main thrust of a post by focussing on some small part which you think you can manipulate or at least muddy is a recognisable arguing technique. I don't want to argue with you at all. It's an empty experience. I only wanted to show appreciation of your earlier exposition.
Attempting to focus attention off the main thrust of a post by focussing on some small part which you think you can manipulate or at least muddy is a recognisable arguing technique. I don't want to argue with you at all. It's an empty experience. I only wanted to show appreciation of your earlier exposition.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Iran's Quest For Freedom
spot;1213219 wrote: There's your problem when discussing these things - simple biased inaccuracy. An acquaintance of mine spent several months in Tehran last year. "it's illegal there to speak to women"? It's nothing of the sort, of course he talked to women. Of course he talked about the nature of Iranian society with them, and the state of the world, and the advantages and limitations of living under a theocratic government. People do already "go into Iran, in an individual non interfering way". I had a couple of pints with him earlier this week, I even had a chat with his dad too about travel broadening the mind.
I'm interested. What are the advantages of living in a theocracy ?
I'm interested. What are the advantages of living in a theocracy ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Iran's Quest For Freedom
Snowfire;1213235 wrote: I'm interested. What are the advantages of living in a theocracy ?
I'm not altogether sure, it's an interesting question. There's a lot of pressure to grant independence to Tibet, for example, instead of its current status as a province of China, and since that would re-establish a theocracy the condition seems to be considered desirable in some instances.
In principle I'd guess that, compared to a system with a directly elected politically active Head of State, a theocracy can establish longer-term goals and stay on track far more consistently. Whether that's worth the potential for repression of dissent would involve looking at specific instances. If you want to pick Iran since 1979 as the instance then I'd say the establishment and continuation of theocratic government there has contributed to Iran's national sense of self-confidence and independence of action. If you're Iranian that would tend to be a good thing. If you're a superpower trying to push Iran into line as a client state then it's a frustration. Theocracies tend not to accept bribes or bow to threats from other countries.
I'm not altogether sure, it's an interesting question. There's a lot of pressure to grant independence to Tibet, for example, instead of its current status as a province of China, and since that would re-establish a theocracy the condition seems to be considered desirable in some instances.
In principle I'd guess that, compared to a system with a directly elected politically active Head of State, a theocracy can establish longer-term goals and stay on track far more consistently. Whether that's worth the potential for repression of dissent would involve looking at specific instances. If you want to pick Iran since 1979 as the instance then I'd say the establishment and continuation of theocratic government there has contributed to Iran's national sense of self-confidence and independence of action. If you're Iranian that would tend to be a good thing. If you're a superpower trying to push Iran into line as a client state then it's a frustration. Theocracies tend not to accept bribes or bow to threats from other countries.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Iran's Quest For Freedom
spot;1213243 wrote: I'm not altogether sure, it's an interesting question. There's a lot of pressure to grant independence to Tibet, for example, instead of its current status as a province of China, and since that would re-establish a theocracy it seems to be something considered desirable in some instances.
In principle I'd guess that, compared to a system with a directly elected politically active Head of State, a theocracy can establish longer-term goals and stay on track for far longer. Whether that's worth the potential for repression of dissent would involve looking at specific instances. If you want to pick Iran since 1979 as the instance then I'd say the establishment and continuation of theocratic government there has contributed to Iran's national sense of self-confidence and independence of action. If you're Iranian that would tend to be a good thing. If you're trying to push Iran into line as a client state then it's a frustration. Theocracies tend not to accept bribes or bow to threats from other countries.
Maybe I look at it from a different perspective, being an athiest but there doesnt seem to be a whole lot af advantages unless a pure fundamentalist line - of whatever denomination - is the one that your happy to make all the decisions for you. Wouldnt it by nature be, on the extreme right of the political spectrum. Thats where I see the Christian theocrats leaning to in the US. "Godly dominion over every aspect of human society" Quite ! Where does that leave reason and freedom of thought ?
There wouldnt be much sense in having a constitution if the - in Irans case for example - the law and rights of its people are governed by whats written in the Quran, or at least one supreme leaders interpretation of it.
Iran were quite willing to help the US in the recent past over Iraq and Afghanistan. There not totally against I'll scratch your back if you fill my palm with dollars to pay for our nuclear generating plant. It all boils down to bribes in which any way you look at it. The US dollar always wins over in the end
In principle I'd guess that, compared to a system with a directly elected politically active Head of State, a theocracy can establish longer-term goals and stay on track for far longer. Whether that's worth the potential for repression of dissent would involve looking at specific instances. If you want to pick Iran since 1979 as the instance then I'd say the establishment and continuation of theocratic government there has contributed to Iran's national sense of self-confidence and independence of action. If you're Iranian that would tend to be a good thing. If you're trying to push Iran into line as a client state then it's a frustration. Theocracies tend not to accept bribes or bow to threats from other countries.
Maybe I look at it from a different perspective, being an athiest but there doesnt seem to be a whole lot af advantages unless a pure fundamentalist line - of whatever denomination - is the one that your happy to make all the decisions for you. Wouldnt it by nature be, on the extreme right of the political spectrum. Thats where I see the Christian theocrats leaning to in the US. "Godly dominion over every aspect of human society" Quite ! Where does that leave reason and freedom of thought ?
There wouldnt be much sense in having a constitution if the - in Irans case for example - the law and rights of its people are governed by whats written in the Quran, or at least one supreme leaders interpretation of it.
Iran were quite willing to help the US in the recent past over Iraq and Afghanistan. There not totally against I'll scratch your back if you fill my palm with dollars to pay for our nuclear generating plant. It all boils down to bribes in which any way you look at it. The US dollar always wins over in the end
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Iran's Quest For Freedom
Snowfire;1213253 wrote: Maybe I look at it from a different perspective, being an athiest but there doesnt seem to be a whole lot af advantages unless a pure fundamentalist line - of whatever denomination - is the one that your happy to make all the decisions for you. Wouldnt it by nature be, on the extreme right of the political spectrum. Thats where I see the Christian theocrats leaning to in the US. "Godly dominion over every aspect of human society" Quite ! Where does that leave reason and freedom of thought ?I read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale a few weeks ago and by crikey I was cheering for the Republic of Gilead from start to finish, thinking how much better the world would be in the circumstances described. Go Gilead!
You don't want the Dalai Lama back in charge of Tibet, then?
You don't want the Dalai Lama back in charge of Tibet, then?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Iran's Quest For Freedom
spot;1213255 wrote: I read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale a few weeks ago and by crikey I was cheering for the Republic of Gilead from start to finish, thinking how much better the world would be in the circumstances described. Go Gilead!
You don't want the Dalai Lama back in charge of Tibet, then?
I havent read the book so maybe I shouldnt comment but a cursory glance makes me think exactly the opposite. I have just read a comment that in the book, the Jews were put onto ship by the Giladean government and dumped in the ocean.
Is this in the book and did you cheer at this point ? Homosexuality is grounds for banishment.... *listens for cheering *.... Black people "relocated "....*hand up to ear*
As for the Dalai Lama, its more important that the people of Tibet and not China decide who governs the country. How much religious freedom is there under the Chinese regime ? If any, it is very recent and because of huge International pressure
You don't want the Dalai Lama back in charge of Tibet, then?
I havent read the book so maybe I shouldnt comment but a cursory glance makes me think exactly the opposite. I have just read a comment that in the book, the Jews were put onto ship by the Giladean government and dumped in the ocean.
Is this in the book and did you cheer at this point ? Homosexuality is grounds for banishment.... *listens for cheering *.... Black people "relocated "....*hand up to ear*
As for the Dalai Lama, its more important that the people of Tibet and not China decide who governs the country. How much religious freedom is there under the Chinese regime ? If any, it is very recent and because of huge International pressure
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Iran's Quest For Freedom
Snowfire;1213274 wrote: I havent read the book so maybe I shouldnt comment but a cursory glance makes me think exactly the opposite. I have just read a comment that in the book, the Jews were put onto ship by the Giladean government and dumped in the ocean.
Is this in the book and did you cheer at this point ? Homosexuality is grounds for banishment.... *listens for cheering *.... Black people "relocated "....*hand up to ear*
As for the Dalai Lama, its more important that the people of Tibet and not China decide who governs the country. How much religious freedom is there under the Chinese regime ? If any, it is very recent and because of huge International pressure
The Gilead comment was more to do with the lack of absorption they had in foreign affairs.
The Tibetan monasteries have been continuous sites of worship throughout Tibet's time under Chinese administration. if it helps I could post evidence to that effect. I'd call that total religious freedom myself.
Is this in the book and did you cheer at this point ? Homosexuality is grounds for banishment.... *listens for cheering *.... Black people "relocated "....*hand up to ear*
As for the Dalai Lama, its more important that the people of Tibet and not China decide who governs the country. How much religious freedom is there under the Chinese regime ? If any, it is very recent and because of huge International pressure
The Gilead comment was more to do with the lack of absorption they had in foreign affairs.
The Tibetan monasteries have been continuous sites of worship throughout Tibet's time under Chinese administration. if it helps I could post evidence to that effect. I'd call that total religious freedom myself.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Iran's Quest For Freedom
As an athiest, the theocracy of Tibet wouldn't be any more acceptable than any other but I'm sure life for the majority of Tibetans would change for the better if the Dalai Lam was allowed to return. Its what the people want, surely, given the human rights violations. Its what the world is calling for.
I'm not promoting the abolition of religion, purely the freedom for people to decide for themselves. Political and religious freedom and the promotion of free thought, not the dictatorial shackles of fundamentalist scriptures, which to all intents and purposes is what the supreme leader of Iran is. The Iranian governement can discuss and cogitate all it likes. The final word is with the top Ayatollah, who's interpretation of the Quran will decide peoples fate.
I happen to think that the west and particularly the US missed the boat a few years ago with Iran. Missed the opportunity, handed to them by president Khatami, for peaceful dialogue. He was, surley, someone we could "do business with". I think he was willing to meet on equal terms. He wasnt a hardliner like those before or since. It was rejected and now they have to deal with Ahmadinajad
I'm not promoting the abolition of religion, purely the freedom for people to decide for themselves. Political and religious freedom and the promotion of free thought, not the dictatorial shackles of fundamentalist scriptures, which to all intents and purposes is what the supreme leader of Iran is. The Iranian governement can discuss and cogitate all it likes. The final word is with the top Ayatollah, who's interpretation of the Quran will decide peoples fate.
I happen to think that the west and particularly the US missed the boat a few years ago with Iran. Missed the opportunity, handed to them by president Khatami, for peaceful dialogue. He was, surley, someone we could "do business with". I think he was willing to meet on equal terms. He wasnt a hardliner like those before or since. It was rejected and now they have to deal with Ahmadinajad
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Iran's Quest For Freedom
Snowfire;1213335 wrote: As an athiest, the theocracy of Tibet wouldn't be any more acceptable than any other but I'm sure life for the majority of Tibetans would change for the better if the Dalai Lam was allowed to return. Its what the people want, surely, given the human rights violations. Its what the world is calling for.
I'm not promoting the abolition of religion, purely the freedom for people to decide for themselves. Political and religious freedom and the promotion of free thought, not the dictatorial shackles of fundamentalist scriptures, which to all intents and purposes is what the supreme leader of Iran is. The Iranian governement can discuss and cogitate all it likes. The final word is with the top Ayatollah, who's interpretation of the Quran will decide peoples fate.
I happen to think that the west and particularly the US missed the boat a few years ago with Iran. Missed the opportunity, handed to them by president Khatami, for peaceful dialogue. He was, surley, someone we could "do business with". I think he was willing to meet on equal terms. He wasnt a hardliner like those before or since. It was rejected and now they have to deal with Ahmadinajad
Doesnt matter. Iran will unravel over time by their own doing. Their course is being determined by a movement that will gain momentum.
I'm not promoting the abolition of religion, purely the freedom for people to decide for themselves. Political and religious freedom and the promotion of free thought, not the dictatorial shackles of fundamentalist scriptures, which to all intents and purposes is what the supreme leader of Iran is. The Iranian governement can discuss and cogitate all it likes. The final word is with the top Ayatollah, who's interpretation of the Quran will decide peoples fate.
I happen to think that the west and particularly the US missed the boat a few years ago with Iran. Missed the opportunity, handed to them by president Khatami, for peaceful dialogue. He was, surley, someone we could "do business with". I think he was willing to meet on equal terms. He wasnt a hardliner like those before or since. It was rejected and now they have to deal with Ahmadinajad
Doesnt matter. Iran will unravel over time by their own doing. Their course is being determined by a movement that will gain momentum.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Iran's Quest For Freedom
Nomad;1214074 wrote: Doesnt matter. Iran will unravel over time by their own doing. Their course is being determined by a movement that will gain momentum.
Why "unravel" rather than change or evolve? Every society on earth is doing that continually. What they have at the moment is what they need if they're to stay a sovereign country with an independent foreign policy. If and when the countries threatening them with First Strike back off and admit they've no business interfering there'll be no pressure on Iranians to keep their backs to the wall and their defensive instincts so highly tuned. The 1979 revolution liberated Iran from foreign domination and domestic terror, they're to be congratulated for ejecting the wastrel Shah and his myriad torturers. Would you have preferred the population to stay subjugated to Western influence under that dreadful regime?
Why "unravel" rather than change or evolve? Every society on earth is doing that continually. What they have at the moment is what they need if they're to stay a sovereign country with an independent foreign policy. If and when the countries threatening them with First Strike back off and admit they've no business interfering there'll be no pressure on Iranians to keep their backs to the wall and their defensive instincts so highly tuned. The 1979 revolution liberated Iran from foreign domination and domestic terror, they're to be congratulated for ejecting the wastrel Shah and his myriad torturers. Would you have preferred the population to stay subjugated to Western influence under that dreadful regime?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.