X-CulT Community Forums: Iran at the edge of civil war - X-CulT Community Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Iran at the edge of civil war Viva Persia!

#1 User is offline   P.P.A.

  • <I>ω<I>
Icon
Posts:
610
Joined:
30-August 07
Gender:
Male
Country:
Germany
Interest:
Classic Amy Fan
Location:
Remagen, Electorate of Cologne

Posted 14 June 2009 - 10:36 AM

During the last few days, Iran held her elections for presidency. It ended with the previous president Ahmadinejad emerging victoriously with about 66% of the votes; however, the votes were rigged and the results are most likely faked. While this was somewhat expectable, the reaction to it was not. Apparently the charade was terribly obvious (the consistency of the votes for him as more votes were counted for example, or the fact that also bastions of the opposition were claimed to have voted primarily for Ahmadinejad), and the Iranian people did not just accept such a betrayal.Yesterday night, the followers of the moderate opposition leader Mousavi (who lost with just 33% officially) took their anger to the streets. Giant demonstrations filled the streets of Tehran, its roofs were filled with people chanting the likes of "Allah is great" and "Death to the dictator". Bloody riots and clashes with the police ensued, the latter which also massively operated against the opposition, allegedly putting around 160 people, including Mousavi, under home arrest.Right now, the country and especially its capital are in a state of chaos bordering civil war. All cellphone networks have been shut down, major news websites and social networks from all over the world have been blocked, the people opposing Ahmadinejad's regime are communicating primarily through Twitter, foreign journalists are more and more suppressed and forced to leave the scene.Ayatollah Khomeini backed the government of Ahmadinejad and urged the people to follow suit, yet it appears not even the leader of the '79 revolution can calm the minds of the ones betrayed of their rights and fooled by their leaders. Mousavi already pledged for a revotum and a nullification of the current ones, while Ahmadinejad still denies anything negative - at the sight of people streaming through the streets, half in flight of the police, but full of enthusiasm and courage.Not only because of a change in the rule of the country might ensure a more peaceful situation in the area especially for Israel, but primarily because of sympathy for these brave people standing up for their rights and democracy, not willing to let a warmongering regime oppress them by ignoring their voices I root for these people. While their chances of success are rather low and this might turn into another Tiananmen, I still wish from the bottom of my heart that they're successful. Some links:http://www.huffingto...e_n_215189.htmlhttp://shooresh1917....og-post_13.html

#2 User is offline   Rad

Icon
Posts:
50
Joined:
25-September 06
Gender:
Not Telling
Country:
Germany
Interest:
Been around forever

Posted 14 June 2009 - 01:48 PM

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

(...)Ayatollah Khomeini backed the government of Ahmadinejad and urged the people to follow suit, yet it appears not even the leader of the '79 revolution can calm the minds of the ones betrayed of their rights and fooled by their leaders(...)
That Khomeini guy is dead, dude O.o. He died 20 years ago...What the fuck has happened to good journalism? (Not trying to offend you P.P.A, but those news guys...!)Since I'm originally from Iran, I just hope that there won't be many casualties, but this looks pretty serious!

This post has been edited by Rad: 14 June 2009 - 01:50 PM


#3 User is offline   S0NICQUOTER

  • I have some unfinished business to take care of.
Icon
Posts:
59
Joined:
01-April 09
Gender:
Male
Interest:
Will still buy the next Sonic game

Posted 14 June 2009 - 02:56 PM

As you can see, the day of reckoning will soon be here. Find the seven Chaos Emeralds, and bring them to me - as promised.

#4 User is offline   P.P.A.

  • <I>ω<I>
Icon
Posts:
610
Joined:
30-August 07
Gender:
Male
Country:
Germany
Interest:
Classic Amy Fan
Location:
Remagen, Electorate of Cologne

Posted 14 June 2009 - 03:06 PM

View PostRad, on Jun 14 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

(...)Ayatollah Khomeini backed the government of Ahmadinejad and urged the people to follow suit, yet it appears not even the leader of the '79 revolution can calm the minds of the ones betrayed of their rights and fooled by their leaders(...)
That Khomeini guy is dead, dude O.o. He died 20 years ago...What the fuck has happened to good journalism? (Not trying to offend you P.P.A, but those news guys...!)Since I'm originally from Iran, I just hope that there won't be many casualties, but this looks pretty serious!
No sorry, that was my fault. I thought the currently alive Ayatollah Khameini was the same as ayatollah Khomeini, just with a slightly different spelling. God I feel stupid now

#5 User is offline   The Government

  • la belle dame sans fucks
Icon
Posts:
1,062
Joined:
17-March 06
Gender:
Pie
Interest:
Been around forever

Posted 14 June 2009 - 03:30 PM

they're not "at the edge of civil war" you hysterical babyit sucks, but either way ahmadinejad "won", and once this blows over it'll be back to the same old shit

#6 User is offline   P.P.A.

  • <I>ω<I>
Icon
Posts:
610
Joined:
30-August 07
Gender:
Male
Country:
Germany
Interest:
Classic Amy Fan
Location:
Remagen, Electorate of Cologne

Posted 14 June 2009 - 05:12 PM

Depends. Either Ahmadinejad will secure his rule by turning the country into a complete dictatorial regime, suppressing any oppositional movements and strictly censoring everything in sight; or the protests will have an effect and there will be civilised and this time correct re-elections... ...or the riots will escalate and the whole country will be thrown into a state of chaos.Sadly, I guess at this point the first outcome would be the most likely.

#7 User is offline   SSUK

  • Rule Britannia, mother fuckers!
Icon
Posts:
3,152
Joined:
01-January 06
Gender:
Male
Country:
Little Planet
Interest:
LOVES FRANZ'S PULSATING MEGA COCK

Posted 14 June 2009 - 05:26 PM

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Depends. Either Ahmadinejad will secure his rule by turning the country into a complete dictatorial regime, suppressing any oppositional movements and strictly censoring everything in sight; or the protests will have an effect and there will be civilised and this time correct re-elections... ...or the riots will escalate and the whole country will be thrown into a state of chaos.Sadly, I guess at this point the first outcome would be the most likely.
By turning? The country is already there. You have an unelected Ayatollah who is like overlord of Iran who vetted all the candidates running for election. Oh joy, people get to vote for what can be best described as different store brand ketchup, they're all slightly different and in a different package... But at the end of the day, it's all shit. So, really, who gives a flying fuck who won this shit-ass election? You're fucked either way and the world is... Well, not quite fucked but more annoyed by Iran giving the constant middle-finger to America to show their massive patriotic penis length.Also, I saw on Digg that news agencies in America haven't really been covering the story on TV... Even though I was watching CNN the other day and it was being covered... Complete with eye-ran pronunciation.p.s.: quick post since Firefox is freaking the fuck out, didn't really check to see if my points made any sense.

#8 User is offline   Rad

Icon
Posts:
50
Joined:
25-September 06
Gender:
Not Telling
Country:
Germany
Interest:
Been around forever

Posted 15 June 2009 - 03:04 AM

View PostSSUK, on Jun 14 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

By turning? The country is already there. You have an unelected Ayatollah who is like overlord of Iran who vetted all the candidates running for election. Oh joy, people get to vote for what can be best described as different store brand ketchup, they're all slightly different and in a different package(...)
that is exactly how I (and most other exile Iranians propably) think too. It won't matter who wins this election as long as those "islamic Mollahs" are the real rulers of this country. Nothing will change until they are gone and I doubt the Iranian population is able to overcome this on their own.

#9 User is offline   Overlord

  • Postcount whoring since 2003~
Icon
Posts:
3,711
Joined:
03-January 06
Gender:
Male
Country:
United Kingdom
Interest:
Programmer
Location:
Berkshire, UK

Posted 15 June 2009 - 03:08 PM

What you need to do is have a sniper go in who's of an Islamic background and of no noticable country of origin. Take a few of the Mollahs out, see what happens =P

#10 User is offline   LMaster562

Icon
Posts:
26
Joined:
06-January 06
Gender:
Male
Country:
United States
Interest:
Been around forever
Location:
Binghamton

Posted 16 June 2009 - 03:15 AM

First thing I saw in the news was that the government was trying to cut all forms of communication off in the country, in particular shutting down online providers to stop social networking. The horrific thing is if something breaks out they may be able to stop people from immediately noticing. If they do try something, it could break out horribly. I think they are probably expecting the worst.

#11 User is offline   SteelBrush

Icon
Posts:
55
Joined:
17-February 08
Gender:
Female
Country:
England
Interest:
Failure

Posted 18 June 2009 - 11:59 PM

View PostSSUK, on Jun 14 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Depends. Either Ahmadinejad will secure his rule by turning the country into a complete dictatorial regime, suppressing any oppositional movements and strictly censoring everything in sight; or the protests will have an effect and there will be civilised and this time correct re-elections... ...or the riots will escalate and the whole country will be thrown into a state of chaos.Sadly, I guess at this point the first outcome would be the most likely.
By turning? The country is already there. You have an unelected Ayatollah who is like overlord of Iran who vetted all the candidates running for election. Oh joy, people get to vote for what can be best described as different store brand ketchup, they're all slightly different and in a different package... But at the end of the day, it's all shit. So, really, who gives a flying fuck who won this shit-ass election? You're fucked either way and the world is... Well, not quite fucked but more annoyed by Iran giving the constant middle-finger to America to show their massive patriotic penis length.Also, I saw on Digg that news agencies in America haven't really been covering the story on TV... Even though I was watching CNN the other day and it was being covered... Complete with eye-ran pronunciation.p.s.: quick post since Firefox is freaking the fuck out, didn't really check to see if my points made any sense.
And the UK having a monarchy is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah.

#12 User is offline   Rad

Icon
Posts:
50
Joined:
25-September 06
Gender:
Not Telling
Country:
Germany
Interest:
Been around forever

Posted 19 June 2009 - 01:03 PM

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 19 2009, 12:59 AM, said:

And the UK having a monarchy is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah.
Isn't that a constitutional monarchy? Your parliamentary system seems pretty democratic to me O.o I really don't think that you can compare the UK with the dictatoric regime in Iran though...

#13 User is offline   Overlord

  • Postcount whoring since 2003~
Icon
Posts:
3,711
Joined:
03-January 06
Gender:
Male
Country:
United Kingdom
Interest:
Programmer
Location:
Berkshire, UK

Posted 19 June 2009 - 02:23 PM

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 19 2009, 05:59 AM, said:

View PostSSUK, on Jun 14 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Depends. Either Ahmadinejad will secure his rule by turning the country into a complete dictatorial regime, suppressing any oppositional movements and strictly censoring everything in sight; or the protests will have an effect and there will be civilised and this time correct re-elections... ...or the riots will escalate and the whole country will be thrown into a state of chaos.Sadly, I guess at this point the first outcome would be the most likely.
By turning? The country is already there. You have an unelected Ayatollah who is like overlord of Iran who vetted all the candidates running for election. Oh joy, people get to vote for what can be best described as different store brand ketchup, they're all slightly different and in a different package... But at the end of the day, it's all shit. So, really, who gives a flying fuck who won this shit-ass election? You're fucked either way and the world is... Well, not quite fucked but more annoyed by Iran giving the constant middle-finger to America to show their massive patriotic penis length.Also, I saw on Digg that news agencies in America haven't really been covering the story on TV... Even though I was watching CNN the other day and it was being covered... Complete with eye-ran pronunciation.p.s.: quick post since Firefox is freaking the fuck out, didn't really check to see if my points made any sense.
And the UK having a monarchy is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah.
Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.

#14 User is offline   SteelBrush

Icon
Posts:
55
Joined:
17-February 08
Gender:
Female
Country:
England
Interest:
Failure

Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:48 PM

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 19 2009, 05:59 AM, said:

View PostSSUK, on Jun 14 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Depends. Either Ahmadinejad will secure his rule by turning the country into a complete dictatorial regime, suppressing any oppositional movements and strictly censoring everything in sight; or the protests will have an effect and there will be civilised and this time correct re-elections... ...or the riots will escalate and the whole country will be thrown into a state of chaos.Sadly, I guess at this point the first outcome would be the most likely.
By turning? The country is already there. You have an unelected Ayatollah who is like overlord of Iran who vetted all the candidates running for election. Oh joy, people get to vote for what can be best described as different store brand ketchup, they're all slightly different and in a different package... But at the end of the day, it's all shit. So, really, who gives a flying fuck who won this shit-ass election? You're fucked either way and the world is... Well, not quite fucked but more annoyed by Iran giving the constant middle-finger to America to show their massive patriotic penis length.Also, I saw on Digg that news agencies in America haven't really been covering the story on TV... Even though I was watching CNN the other day and it was being covered... Complete with eye-ran pronunciation.p.s.: quick post since Firefox is freaking the fuck out, didn't really check to see if my points made any sense.
And the UK having a monarchy is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah.
Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
I'm not saying I would prefer a president or a dictatorship, but surely having an unelected head of state is undemocratic. The Queen does stay out of state affairs, Prince Charles however, does frequently meddle in things that he shouldn't. BBC NewsObviously not on the same scale as vote rigging but the principle is the same.

#15 User is offline   Cho

Icon
Posts:
480
Joined:
31-December 05
Gender:
Male
Country:
England
Interest:
General Fan

Posted 20 June 2009 - 06:10 AM

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
Not entirely true. She can dissolve parliament with a snap of her fingers.

#16 User is offline   Overlord

  • Postcount whoring since 2003~
Icon
Posts:
3,711
Joined:
03-January 06
Gender:
Male
Country:
United Kingdom
Interest:
Programmer
Location:
Berkshire, UK

Posted 20 June 2009 - 01:11 PM

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 20 2009, 05:48 AM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 19 2009, 05:59 AM, said:

View PostSSUK, on Jun 14 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Depends. Either Ahmadinejad will secure his rule by turning the country into a complete dictatorial regime, suppressing any oppositional movements and strictly censoring everything in sight; or the protests will have an effect and there will be civilised and this time correct re-elections... ...or the riots will escalate and the whole country will be thrown into a state of chaos.Sadly, I guess at this point the first outcome would be the most likely.
By turning? The country is already there. You have an unelected Ayatollah who is like overlord of Iran who vetted all the candidates running for election. Oh joy, people get to vote for what can be best described as different store brand ketchup, they're all slightly different and in a different package... But at the end of the day, it's all shit. So, really, who gives a flying fuck who won this shit-ass election? You're fucked either way and the world is... Well, not quite fucked but more annoyed by Iran giving the constant middle-finger to America to show their massive patriotic penis length.Also, I saw on Digg that news agencies in America haven't really been covering the story on TV... Even though I was watching CNN the other day and it was being covered... Complete with eye-ran pronunciation.p.s.: quick post since Firefox is freaking the fuck out, didn't really check to see if my points made any sense.
And the UK having a monarchy is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah.
Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
I'm not saying I would prefer a president or a dictatorship, but surely having an unelected head of state is undemocratic. The Queen does stay out of state affairs, Prince Charles however, does frequently meddle in things that he shouldn't. BBC NewsObviously not on the same scale as vote rigging but the principle is the same.
OK, he has some sway on projects by being in a position of influence. How is this different to any other person in a high seat of power? Most MPs have this level of influence.

View PostCho, on Jun 20 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
Not entirely true. She can dissolve parliament with a snap of her fingers.
While I'll grant this is true, you and I both know that if a monarch ever does it, the resulting political fallout will ensure an end to the Royal Family. It's a suicide button and you know it. Hence because this power cannot be used, it's essentially non-existant.

#17 User is offline   SteelBrush

Icon
Posts:
55
Joined:
17-February 08
Gender:
Female
Country:
England
Interest:
Failure

Posted 20 June 2009 - 01:50 PM

View PostOverlord, on Jun 20 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 20 2009, 05:48 AM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 19 2009, 05:59 AM, said:

View PostSSUK, on Jun 14 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Depends. Either Ahmadinejad will secure his rule by turning the country into a complete dictatorial regime, suppressing any oppositional movements and strictly censoring everything in sight; or the protests will have an effect and there will be civilised and this time correct re-elections... ...or the riots will escalate and the whole country will be thrown into a state of chaos.Sadly, I guess at this point the first outcome would be the most likely.
By turning? The country is already there. You have an unelected Ayatollah who is like overlord of Iran who vetted all the candidates running for election. Oh joy, people get to vote for what can be best described as different store brand ketchup, they're all slightly different and in a different package... But at the end of the day, it's all shit. So, really, who gives a flying fuck who won this shit-ass election? You're fucked either way and the world is... Well, not quite fucked but more annoyed by Iran giving the constant middle-finger to America to show their massive patriotic penis length.Also, I saw on Digg that news agencies in America haven't really been covering the story on TV... Even though I was watching CNN the other day and it was being covered... Complete with eye-ran pronunciation.p.s.: quick post since Firefox is freaking the fuck out, didn't really check to see if my points made any sense.
And the UK having a monarchy is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah.
Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
I'm not saying I would prefer a president or a dictatorship, but surely having an unelected head of state is undemocratic. The Queen does stay out of state affairs, Prince Charles however, does frequently meddle in things that he shouldn't. BBC NewsObviously not on the same scale as vote rigging but the principle is the same.
OK, he has some sway on projects by being in a position of influence. How is this different to any other person in a high seat of power? Most MPs have this level of influence.

View PostCho, on Jun 20 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
Not entirely true. She can dissolve parliament with a snap of her fingers.
While I'll grant this is true, you and I both know that if a monarch ever does it, the resulting political fallout will ensure an end to the Royal Family. It's a suicide button and you know it. Hence because this power cannot be used, it's essentially non-existant.
MPs are elected. If The Queen dissolved parliament with public approval I don't think there would be a problem, with how the nation feels about politicians at the moment, I could see this happening.

#18 User is offline   IUG

  • red power
Icon
Posts:
1,902
Joined:
10-June 06
Gender:
Male
Country:
United States
Interest:
Jaded Sonic Fan
Location:
Bristol, CT, USA

Posted 20 June 2009 - 07:07 PM

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 20 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 20 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 20 2009, 05:48 AM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 19 2009, 05:59 AM, said:

View PostSSUK, on Jun 14 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Depends. Either Ahmadinejad will secure his rule by turning the country into a complete dictatorial regime, suppressing any oppositional movements and strictly censoring everything in sight; or the protests will have an effect and there will be civilised and this time correct re-elections... ...or the riots will escalate and the whole country will be thrown into a state of chaos.Sadly, I guess at this point the first outcome would be the most likely.
By turning? The country is already there. You have an unelected Ayatollah who is like overlord of Iran who vetted all the candidates running for election. Oh joy, people get to vote for what can be best described as different store brand ketchup, they're all slightly different and in a different package... But at the end of the day, it's all shit. So, really, who gives a flying fuck who won this shit-ass election? You're fucked either way and the world is... Well, not quite fucked but more annoyed by Iran giving the constant middle-finger to America to show their massive patriotic penis length.Also, I saw on Digg that news agencies in America haven't really been covering the story on TV... Even though I was watching CNN the other day and it was being covered... Complete with eye-ran pronunciation.p.s.: quick post since Firefox is freaking the fuck out, didn't really check to see if my points made any sense.
And the UK having a monarchy is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah.
Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
I'm not saying I would prefer a president or a dictatorship, but surely having an unelected head of state is undemocratic. The Queen does stay out of state affairs, Prince Charles however, does frequently meddle in things that he shouldn't. BBC NewsObviously not on the same scale as vote rigging but the principle is the same.
OK, he has some sway on projects by being in a position of influence. How is this different to any other person in a high seat of power? Most MPs have this level of influence.

View PostCho, on Jun 20 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
Not entirely true. She can dissolve parliament with a snap of her fingers.
While I'll grant this is true, you and I both know that if a monarch ever does it, the resulting political fallout will ensure an end to the Royal Family. It's a suicide button and you know it. Hence because this power cannot be used, it's essentially non-existant.
MPs are elected. If The Queen dissolved parliament with public approval I don't think there would be a problem, with how the nation feels about politicians at the moment, I could see this happening.
Just quotin' to get a giant pyramid going.

#19 User is offline   S0NICQUOTER

  • I have some unfinished business to take care of.
Icon
Posts:
59
Joined:
01-April 09
Gender:
Male
Interest:
Will still buy the next Sonic game

Posted 20 June 2009 - 07:11 PM

View PostIUG, on Jun 20 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 20 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 20 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 20 2009, 05:48 AM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

View PostSteelBrush, on Jun 19 2009, 05:59 AM, said:

View PostSSUK, on Jun 14 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

View PostP.P.A., on Jun 14 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Depends. Either Ahmadinejad will secure his rule by turning the country into a complete dictatorial regime, suppressing any oppositional movements and strictly censoring everything in sight; or the protests will have an effect and there will be civilised and this time correct re-elections... ...or the riots will escalate and the whole country will be thrown into a state of chaos.Sadly, I guess at this point the first outcome would be the most likely.
By turning? The country is already there. You have an unelected Ayatollah who is like overlord of Iran who vetted all the candidates running for election. Oh joy, people get to vote for what can be best described as different store brand ketchup, they're all slightly different and in a different package... But at the end of the day, it's all shit. So, really, who gives a flying fuck who won this shit-ass election? You're fucked either way and the world is... Well, not quite fucked but more annoyed by Iran giving the constant middle-finger to America to show their massive patriotic penis length.Also, I saw on Digg that news agencies in America haven't really been covering the story on TV... Even though I was watching CNN the other day and it was being covered... Complete with eye-ran pronunciation.p.s.: quick post since Firefox is freaking the fuck out, didn't really check to see if my points made any sense.
And the UK having a monarchy is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah.
Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
I'm not saying I would prefer a president or a dictatorship, but surely having an unelected head of state is undemocratic. The Queen does stay out of state affairs, Prince Charles however, does frequently meddle in things that he shouldn't. BBC NewsObviously not on the same scale as vote rigging but the principle is the same.
OK, he has some sway on projects by being in a position of influence. How is this different to any other person in a high seat of power? Most MPs have this level of influence.

View PostCho, on Jun 20 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

View PostOverlord, on Jun 19 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Considering that the monarch nowadays has zero real power other than being an Ambassador I would say that yes - she is completely different from an unelected Ayatollah. Does the monarch vet Prime Ministers? I believe the answer to that is no.
Not entirely true. She can dissolve parliament with a snap of her fingers.
While I'll grant this is true, you and I both know that if a monarch ever does it, the resulting political fallout will ensure an end to the Royal Family. It's a suicide button and you know it. Hence because this power cannot be used, it's essentially non-existant.
MPs are elected. If The Queen dissolved parliament with public approval I don't think there would be a problem, with how the nation feels about politicians at the moment, I could see this happening.
Just quotin' to get a giant pyramid going.
Those idiots will never find my hidden base inside this pyramid. Let's take care of business here first, then get inside.

#20 User is offline   Proto

  • RAPE
Icon
Posts:
169
Joined:
19-December 07
Gender:
Male
Country:
United States
Interest:
Theorist
Location:
Pennsylvania

Posted 20 June 2009 - 09:11 PM

Goddamnit, SONICQUOTER. Why is it that every topic you post in an instant win?

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users