3 ms·
Maybe. But if the people are free at the end of this, it doesn't really matter who or why it began. It's long overdue.
by jvanderbot 9mo ago
Maybe. But if the people are free at the end of this, it doesn't really matter who or why it began. It's long overdue.
- whatshisface 9mo agoIran was not free under the Shah, just UK-aligned. It depends on what they're doing.
- lm28469 9mo agoStill better than turbo islamists on virtually all fronts
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- onemoresoop 9mo agoSure, but better for who? Most likely for the West I'd say. It's pretty bad for Persians as well but who knows what other leader would have done to them. If the regime falls I'd say good riddance but it's no guarantee for a better life or stability in the region.
- breppp 9mo agobetter for these guys: https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?phrase=public+hanging+iran https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?phrase=public+han...
- whatshisface 9mo agoSaddam did stuff like that and he was secular. The original Shah also did things like that. It's not wise to downplay the value of democracy.
- lm28469 9mo ago> Sure, but better for who? Most likely for the West I'd say. Do you think people go fight their armed government known for heavily repressing any kind of protest for fun after work ?
- jvanderbot 9mo agoThe people of iran will decide who it's better for, as is their right. I hope to wake up to see a free iran any day now.
- inglor_cz 9mo agoThere is no going back to absolutist rule anywhere in the world, much less in a country which just tasted blood for freedom. If Iran turns into a monarchy, it will be a very formal constitutional one, like Spain.
- HPsquared 9mo agoEl Salvador seems to be a counterexample, at least to this casual observer.
- jacquesm 9mo agoThe United States may well become one.
- inglor_cz 9mo agoI meant an absolutist monarchy. This is really a dying form, though not yet totally dead. Paradoxically, republics of today seem more vulnerable to authoritarian turns than the monarchies which survived the 20th century. Probably because an elected leader has more legitimacy and thus can demand more political power, sometimes too much power. In a constitutional monarchy, there is always a psychological split between the sovereign and the prime minister or whoever gets elected to executive power, and one-man-shows are less likely to succeed.
- whatshisface 9mo agoThere is no going "back" to absolutist monarchism because it was actually a highly evolved (over centuries) form of government that eventually became the political norms of Europe today. There are a lot of ways to go forward to an isolated dictator driven by a terrible fear of his own citizens however.