BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 8,790
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #106 |
Perhaps governments tend towards tyranny as the universe tends toward entropy. Both effects can be overcome, but only at the cost of the expenditure of energy.
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | | |
Plantagenet
Registered: 10/31/09
Posts: 10
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #107 |
I doubt there will be a restoration of the monarchy in Iran. I agree that the younger generation may not remember the shah's time but there is such a thing as family history and those memories will not die easily. There is a underlining reason for the existence of the present regime. |
| Loading... | | |
BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 8,790
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #108 |
James the Weak is no longer President.
What Barack the Swarthy would do is anyone's guess.
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | | |
Peter
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 2,413
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #109 |
The Shah was not all bad. There were periods of oppression and cruelty during his regime, no one can deny. The present regime has been a period of oppression and cruelty, three decades of it. Life on the whole under the Shah was more prosperous, more liberal, more open to the world, better and freer. Which is not to say that a Pahlavi restoration is likely.
I do recall that discussion of US politics on this particular thread is banned, so will do no more than suggest a change of sobriquet for the current President, the present one would cause PC hearts to seize up. No racist intent by you suggested, it is just an unfortunate albeit obvious choice. The ones I could suggest would amount to discussing politics, so I won't.
|
| Loading... | | |
BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 8,790
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #110 |
As the president is still in office, only the 'obvious ones', by that I mean those connected with his physical being, are truly 'available' - his 'defining attribute' won't be recognized until after he leaves office.
Barack the Sinister Handed would be 'physically correct' but even more politically in-correct. The press has made much of his being 'black' (which he isn't), they should let 'swarthy' (which he is) slide!
From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: swar·thy Pronunciation: \?swo?r-th?, -th?\ Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): swar·thi·er; swar·thi·est Etymology: alteration of obsolete swarty, from swart Date: 1587 : of a dark colour, complexion, or cast
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | | |
Peter
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 2,413
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #111 |
Leave him without sobriquet until his term ends, then. This would be historically apt. Unlike common folk before surnames became generally used, Kings and other rulers often went without such designations during their reigns; after all, within their realms they could be called just the King or the Duke or whatever, there was only one, and elsewhere they were the King or Duke or something of somewhere. After their reign ended a way was needed to distinguish them from others of the same name, so in came, to use English examples, Edmund the Magnificent, Edgar the Peaceful, Edwy the Fair and so forth.
Then the convenient system of dynastic numerals came into use, and nicknames became far more rare. We have retrospectively applied the numerals to just about everyone who ever reigned, but people of the time including the bearer of the numeral would have had no idea whom we were talking about. People of this time would know all too well whom you are discussing with that name, and fairly or otherwise the usage would be bound to offend some. Up to you, I'll say no more on the matter.
|
| Loading... | | |
BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 8,790
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #112 |
Excellent point.
I shall henceforth when waxing long-and-flowery use 'this present President' until such time as he has defined his term.
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | | |
Pachacutec
Registered: 10/07/09
Posts: 111
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #113 |
Quote: The Shah was not all bad. There were periods of oppression and cruelty during his regime, no one can deny
I do |
| Loading... | | |
Ethiomonarchist
Registered: 11/15/07
Posts: 1,434
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #114 |
In regard to the Pahlavi's we've seen what their opponents were capable of. Reza Shah and Mohamed Reza Shah weren't the wisest in their methods, but considering that they were facing a determined and motivated opposition made up of left wing radicals on one side and extreme right wing Islamo-fascists on the other it is remarkable what they were able to achieve for Iran. We have seen what happened when the mullahs won that struggle. Iran was an economic and military powerhouse in the region. Under Reza Shah education and the status of women in Persian society made huge strides. Under Mohammed Reza Shah Iran reached a level of modernity that was unrivaled across the middle east. It was a major non-Arab Islamic state that was a firm western friend that maintained cordial ties to Israel. Today although it is a major oil producer Iran can no longer refine it's own oil and has to import refined petroleum products. It's economy is a shambles and whatever personal freedoms the subjects of the Shah once enjoyed have been stripped away by the Islamic republic. When his people marched in the streets chanting for his death, the Shah took his Empress and children and left a country that clearly no longer wanted him. When the people marched in the streets against the present dictator who stole an election, Ahmedinejad mowed them down. Is there really any comparison? I don't think there can be any doubt which regime was better for Iran. Persia was once a proud and glorious empire that fell on hard times and a long decline. The Pahlavi Shahs did much to turn this around. Sadly their dreams for Iran have been shattered and what remains is a shabby, oppressed, dangerous entity that not only damages it's own people but endangers the world.
Give me the Shah of Iran any day over the present lot.
__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed. |
| Loading... | | |
Peter
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 2,413
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #115 |
I fully agree with your eloquent statement, Ethiomonarchist. There is no point in pretending that there was nothing to complain about under the Shah, but there was a lot less than under the atrocious Kadjars that preceded the Pahlavis, or indeed take your pick from a number of preceding dynasties. And immensely less than under the present monstrosity, which is such a danger to the world, so vilely oppressive to the people of Iran, and such a disgrace to Iran and Islam.
As you say, there was much to admire and celebrate, too, but as is the way of these things Western media ignored all these and focused only on the harsh suppression of dissent, which was at times excessively harsh. The actual nature of the dissenters was of course irrelevant to the media and the leftist thought which even then dominated it. When you look at what has happened since the cruelties of the Savak, still very wrong, become a little more understandable.
|
| Loading... | | |
Ethiomonarchist
Registered: 11/15/07
Posts: 1,434
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #116 |
Amen Peter. And let me also add that the vile treachery of Jimmy Carter in his treatment of the Shah should also be remembered. Considering his love of many a tin pot dictator his rather self rightious treatment of the Shah turns me stomach. I'm not a huge fan of Richard Nixon, but I respected him emensely for the respect he showed by attending the Shah's funeral in Cairo.
__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed. |
| Loading... | | |
Pachacutec
Registered: 10/07/09
Posts: 111
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #117 |
Savak was too gentle given the circumstances as subsequent events demonstrated. The Shah's failing was in showing too much kindness to his enemies as evidenced by his disastrous decision to exile Khomeini when he should have just had him hanged. And doing a Manuel is a display of weakness that history cannot forgive. Jimmy Carter was just weak, he did whatever was easiest whether in selling out his allies or in his pathetic response to the Iranian invasion of his own country. |
| Loading... | | |
BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 8,790
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #118 |
Ah,
Something we agree on.
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | | |
Pachacutec
Registered: 10/07/09
Posts: 111
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #119 |
How appalling. Half a dozen controversial statements and he just agrees. I'm losing my touch. |
| Loading... | | |
