Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 84
Reply with quote  #16 
There is more than one form of mass murder. Stalin didn’t discriminate, doesn’t make him any better than Hitler.

I’ve never claimed the US supporting PYD is right, you’re the only one mentioning it.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROO86
There is more than one form of mass murder. Stalin didn’t discriminate, doesn’t make him any better than Hitler.

I’ve never claimed the US supporting PYD is right, you’re the only one mentioning it.

As an anti-Communist Kurd, the fight against PKK/PYD is of paramount importance to me. I'm descended from East German nobility. The homeland of my ancestors was ruled by a ruthless Communist dictatorship from 1945 to 1989. But in the autumn of 1989 overthrew the East Germans the Communist dictatorship of Erich Honecker. I admire Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of Russia in 1989, because he refused to crack down on the anti-Communist revolution in East Germany. South (Iraqi) Kurdistan is similar to West Germany. The PYD regime in the Kurdish regions of Syria was similar to Communist East Germany. Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of PKK, is similar to Erich Honecker. Assad isn't a Communist. The Assad regime isn't anti-religious, and it respects private property. Putin is currently liberating the Kurdish regions of Syria from Communist rule. Putin is the Gorbachev of Kurdistan.
I'm an Eastern Christian. I prefer Assad to the Islamist Syrian rebels, who is supported by Turkey. Assad is a secularist, who supports freedom of religion.
USA invading other countries is unacceptable, unless they are committing genocide or supports international terrorism. Do you support a US invasion of Syria in order to overthrow Assad? If you support an US invasion of Syria in order to overthrow Assad, who do you want to rule Syria, when Assad is overthrown?
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 84
Reply with quote  #18 
Yes, you’ve mentioned your background on numerous threads numerous times. I’m familiar with it. I’m also familiar with the fall of communism.

None of which at all explains or supports your assertion that Assad should be crowned King nor why Assad should be kept in power at all.

As a Monarchist, who wishes to see restorations in various countries, any Assad King-ship would irreparably damage our cause in this modern world.

Respecting private property and being an anti-communist simply aren’t good enough reasons to keep a brutal dictator, who has waged a war against his own people, in power.

The US’ Middle Eastern policy isn’t what is being debated here. If you must know, I don’t think the US’ interests are much served by getting bogged down in another Middle Eastern war. I don’t think Russia should be in Syria either.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROO86
Yes, you’ve mentioned your background on numerous threads numerous times. I’m familiar with it. I’m also familiar with the fall of communism.

None of which at all explains or supports your assertion that Assad should be crowned King nor why Assad should be kept in power at all.

As a Monarchist, who wishes to see restorations in various countries, any Assad King-ship would irreparably damage our cause in this modern world.

Respecting private property and being an anti-communist simply aren’t good enough reasons to keep a brutal dictator, who has waged a war against his own people, in power.

The US’ Middle Eastern policy isn’t what is being debated here. If you must know, I don’t think the US’ interests are much served by getting bogged down in another Middle Eastern war. I don’t think Russia should be in Syria either.

Which regime do you want to replace the Assad regime? Despising Assad is easy. Proposing a better option is difficult. Do you prefer PYD or the Islamist Syrian rebels to Assad?
Russia ought to stay in Syria, because Assad, who was the President of Syria before the war, invited the Russian armed forces to stay in Syria. Assad hasn't invited US troops to stay in Syria. I'm grateful to USA for overthrowing Saddam, and the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was justified, because Taliban supported Al-Qaida and sheltered Osama bin Laden. But USA has overstayed its welcome in the Middle East. The US intervention in Syria and USA supporting Kurdish Communist terrorists in Syria is unacceptable, and the US invasion of Libya, which killed Gaddafi, who ceased to support international terrorism long before the US invasion of Libya and who was elected King of Kings of Africa by 200 African kings, was utterly wrong. I'm opposed to USA invading Iran. I dislike the Iranian regime, and I hope the Iranian people will overthrow the regime and restore the Pahlavi monarchy, but it must happen without US interference.
Assad becoming King of Syria is very unlikely, because being a dictatorial president, who is formally re-elected, gives far more international legitimacy to his regime than being an autocratic king. The only president of a republic, which might be crowned, is Putin, because some prominent supporters of Putin, including Sergey Aksyonov, the governor of Crimea, wants Putin to be crowned Tsar of Russia. Putin might be a descendant of Rurik through the Putyatin family. I want Putin to be crowned Tsar of Russia, if Putin is indeed a descendant of Rurik.
bator

Registered:
Posts: 235
Reply with quote  #20 
well at least the fall of gadaffi brought back the old monarchist flag to libya. better than nothing still.

as for kurdish syria the area should have been liberated by forces from iraqi kurdistan and joined with that, so the iraqi kurdish government could rule that area too.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bator
well at least the fall of gadaffi brought back the old monarchist flag to libya. better than nothing still.

as for kurdish syria the area should have been liberated by forces from iraqi kurdistan and joined with that, so the iraqi kurdish government could rule that area too.

I agree, that the Peshmerga (the army of South (Iraqi) Kurdistan) occupying the Kurdish regions of Syria is the best solution. It has actually been proposed, but USA hasn't allowed it to happen. It's too late now, because Assad's army has entered the Kurdish regions of Syria. The Peshmerga trying to expel Assad's army from the Kurdish regions of Syria is a very bad idea, because Assad is a close ally of Russia. We need Russian support in order to obtain independence from Iraq. Russia supported the referendum on Kurdish independence from Iraq in 2017, while USA opposed it. But Russia wants Assad to grant the Syrian Kurds more linguistic and cultural rights. 
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 84
Reply with quote  #22 
Why must the choice only be between a murderous tyrant, communists and Islamic terrorists?

I support the establishment of a legitimate Monarchy in Syria. There are plenty of legitimate Royal Houses in the Middle East which could easily be drawn upon to provide a King.

Unfortunately the more realistic scenario is the overthrow of Assad, free elections and the election of a new president.

Mussolini invited Germans troops into Italy when the writing was on the wall...doesn’t mean they should’ve been there.

Gaddafi should’ve been hung, drawn and quartered a long time ago. He was a traitor who overthrew his King, oppressed/murderer his people, supported terrorism abroad and in no way deserves any sympathy.

One of Putins puppets proposing Putin for Tsar doesn’t impress me. Again, a figure like Putin being elevated to Tsar, doesn’t do the institution of Monarchy many favours.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROO86
Why must the choice only be between a murderous tyrant, communists and Islamic terrorists?

I support the establishment of a legitimate Monarchy in Syria. There are plenty of legitimate Royal Houses in the Middle East which could easily be drawn upon to provide a King.

Unfortunately the more realistic scenario is the overthrow of Assad, free elections and the election of a new president.

Mussolini invited Germans troops into Italy when the writing was on the wall...doesn’t mean they should’ve been there.

Gaddafi should’ve been hung, drawn and quartered a long time ago. He was a traitor who overthrew his King, oppressed/murderer his people, supported terrorism abroad and in no way deserves any sympathy.

One of Putins puppets proposing Putin for Tsar doesn’t impress me. Again, a figure like Putin being elevated to Tsar, doesn’t do the institution of Monarchy many favours.

As an Eastern Christian, I prefer secular dictatorships to democratically elected Islamist governments.
Comparing Putin to Hitler is unacceptable. Putin doesn't support racial discrimination, and he doesn't want to annex any land except Crimea. He doesn't want world domination unlike Hitler. Assad hasn't betrayed his country unlike Mussolini.
If Putin is indeed a descendant of Rurik, I will support Putin being crowned Tsar of Russia. I don't care about the damage Putin being crowned Tsar of Russia will do to the monarchist cause in other former monarchies, because the Russian monarchy is the #1 monarchy, which I want to restore. I also want the Iranian monarchy to be restored, but Putin being crowned Tsar of Russia likely won't damage Iranian monarchism, because Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi is currently very popular, because he is a prominent opponent of the Iranian regime. The Iranians will not suddenly turn against Reza Pahlavi, because Putin is crowned Tsar of Russia. Monarchism is already insignificant in the former monarchies of Western Europe. I'm satisfied with Germany being a republic, because the Federal Republic of Germany is a decent republic, which recognizes titles of nobility as part of the legal name.
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 84
Reply with quote  #24 
As I said I don’t accept that there are only the three options you’ve listed.

I also don’t accept that Germany is a “decent” republic because it includes titles as surnames. We’re setting a very low bar if that is the criteria.

I don’t think the Balkanisation of the Middle East is in anyone’s interest and current national borders should be respected. Last thing we need is another failed state in the region.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROO86
As I said I don’t accept that there are only the three options you’ve listed.

I also don’t accept that Germany is a “decent” republic because it includes titles as surnames. We’re setting a very low bar if that is the criteria.

I don’t think the Balkanisation of the Middle East is in anyone’s interest and current national borders should be respected. Last thing we need is another failed state in the region.

Iraq is a failed state. It's a very unstable state with a democratically elected Shia Islamist government. South (Iraqi) Kurdistan is far more stable and secular than Iraq proper.
I prefer secular dictatorships to democratically elected Islamist governments, because I'm an Eastern Christian.
Germany is a decent republic, because it's a secular democracy, which rejects Nazism and Communism, because it recognizes titles of nobility as surnames and because it's a welfare state. University education is free of charge in Germany, unlike in Great Britain and USA. University education is also free of charge in South (Iraqi) Kurdistan. South (Iraqi) Kurdistan is a decent republic, because it's a secular democracy, which rejects Islamism and Communism, and the Kurdish aristocracy retains significant influence in South (Iraqi) Kurdistan.
Democratic constitutional hereditary monarchy is my preferred form of government, but I'm not an extremist monarchist, who claims, that all republics are evil. Nazi Germany, the German Democratic Republic (Communist East Germany), Baathist Iraq, Soviet Russia were evil republics and the Islamic Republic of Iran is an evil republic, but South (Iraqi) Kurdistan, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Russian Federation are decent republics.
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 84
Reply with quote  #26 
If Iraq is a failed state then the Iraqi Kurdish region is both part of the problem and part of the solution. Dismantling the country into two states isn’t going to achieve much for regional stability and energies are much better spent on fixing the issues with Iraq, making it a strong and stable country instead.

Iran offers free university education...therefore qualifies as a decent republic under your criteria.
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 84
Reply with quote  #27 
As you added more to your reply. I’ve never claimed Germany is an evil republic. My issue is with your criteria for claiming that it is a decent republic.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROO86
If Iraq is a failed state then the Iraqi Kurdish region is both part of the problem and part of the solution. Dismantling the country into two states isn’t going to achieve much for regional stability and energies are much better spent on fixing the issues with Iraq, making it a strong and stable country instead.

Iran offers free university education...therefore qualifies as a decent republic under your criteria.

I don't care about regional stability. I care about my own country, and I want it to be independent. Russia accepts Kurdish independence from Iraq. We don't share a national identity with the Arab Iraqis. We are an Iranic people. I would like South (Iraqi) Kurdistan to join Iran, if the Iranian regime is overthrown and the Pahlavi monarchy is restored. We are sadly not able to fix the problems of Iraq. Being shackled to a failed state is a really bad idea. Somaliland made a really wise decision, when it seceded from Somalia. Somaliland is a stable state today, while Somalia is a failed state ruled by warlords and pirates. Kurdistan isn't comparable to Scotland or Catalonia.
I'm opposed to a Greater Kurdistan. We ought to respect the territorial integrity of Turkey, Syria and Iran. An independent Kurdistan on former Iraqi territory will not destabilize the Middle East, unless Turkey invades South (Iraqi) Kurdistan, but trying to establish a Greater Kurdistan will destabilize the Middle East.
I consider Germany a decent republic, because the Federal Republic of Germany rejects totalitarianism. I prefer democratic constitutional hereditary monarchies, but I'm not opposed to the existence of non-totalitarian republics. The Federal Republic of Germany offers it citizens a far better quality of life than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does, because Germany is a welfare state unlike Great Britain. Great Britain suffers from neoliberalism. In addition, German democracy works far better than British democracy, because the two main parties of Germany are willing to cooperate unlike in Great Britain. Germany has excellent public services, including the Deutsche Bahn (the state-owned railroad company of Germany).
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #29 
I cannot imagine what makes you think the UK is not a welfare state.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I cannot imagine what makes you think the UK is not a welfare state.

Comparing it to Germany and reading the Guardian.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.