| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/28/2005 9:34:25 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked at poster’s request. |
Posted on 01/22/2005 2:03:08 AM PST by F14 Pilot
If Queen Elizabeth II came to the United States on a state visit, would you have President Bush address her as "Mrs. Mountbatten"? Would you do so yourself if for some reason you were in a position to meet her during her visit?
No American president has shared your radical view.
What right does Bush or the US have to determine what form of government other countries should have?
If a majority of the Iranian people wanted to restore the monarchy, by democratic principles alone they should be able to do so.
So Great Britain, Sweden, Spain, etc. are not democracies?
The War of Independence if you're white (for the most part). The Civil War if you're black (for the most part).
As for "rights and freedoms," what about the rights and freedoms of the American loyalists who were harrassed, tarred & feathered, and driven out of the country because they wished to remain loyal to the Crown?
The revolution was a war against monarchy. British Loyalists, by clinging to that monarchy, were, by definition, the enemy. They were a serious danger of becoming a counter-liberty fifth column. Face it. In war, yo do bad things to the enemy. You do not offer "aid and comfort" to them. The enemy of the free man is not the tyrant, but the willing slave who keeps the tyrant in power.
The atrocious treatment of the loyalists by the "Sons of Liberty" showed the revolution to be hypocritical from the very beginning.
See above. And untrue. We fought the revolution for all men who would be free. Not for people who wanted to re-enslave us. When you declare yourself anothers enemy, you cannot then complain when they treat you badly (though certain muslim dictatorships do try, and fuzzy-minded liberals do fall for it).
As my website makes clear,
As if I give a democRat's A** about your website. I don't need to see any more knee-bending drivel than what you've written here.
I could fall in all three of your insulting categories of American monarchists
Insulting? Far from it. The truth just hurts sometimes.
but yes, I am certainly a "true believer."
Then I feel sorry for you.
I am also a Tolkien fan (please spell his name correctly), so I guess that makes me doubly irrelevant in your view.
Spelling complaints are petty (and irrelevant). However, I thought Tolkien was one of those exceptions to the "I before E " rule.
However, be that as it may be, the works of Tolkien and the concept of royalty share one thing: they are both complete fantasy. Unfortunately for humanity, a lot of needless suffering has come from adhering to the lie of royalty.
I am sure that the present-day residents of Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Spain will be most interested to learn that they are akin to slaves.
They are. A lot of fools are still fools. And I don't think they are all happy to be subjects. Look at the recurring referendums on monarchy in those countries. The numbers for abolition keep climbing with every iteration. Though they may make vainglorious babble trying to refute that. The very concept of royalty flies in the face of the inherent truth of human equality. The monarchists you mention for some reason prefer to think of themselves as lesser than another through the mere accident of their births. That is their problem.
Rather, it is the recognition of the need to give honor to a person who by inheriting his or her position
Again, I have yet to see anyone adequately explain to me why an inherited position deserves any recognition. Especially when it's a false position to begin with.
There is nothing remotely degrading about an appreciation of the splendid pageantry, traditions, and rituals associated with monarchy.
Splendid pageantry cannot hide the inherent degrading nature of the institution itself. Like most monarchists, you lack the ability to see through the drama to the basic, underlying principle that some people are lesser than others through nothing more than who their parents were.
These things exist for the benefit of the people, not for the monarch. I am sorry that you cannot appreciate them.
Um. No. These things exist for the people who also find themselves, somewhere in the hierarchy above the bottom. And that's the other basic problem with monarchy. It defines an ilegitimate concept of government where political power derives from a source other than the will of the people and the individual. Plain and simple.
Fine by me. I'd rather he just deal with Mr. Blair, who could actually be said to have some legitimacy when speaking for the people of England.
Should Mrs. Mountbatten (or whatever her name is - that family has never been able to just stick to one last name) visit the states, to her it might be a "State Visit", but as far as I'm concerned, she's just another tourist.
Would you do so yourself if for some reason you were in a position to meet her during her visit?
I think I'd shake her hand and feel deeply sorry and embarrased for Mrs. Mountbatten. Apart from the atrocious behavior of her children (not to mention her grandchildren), she herself is also a slave to the system of monarchy. She can hardly be called a free person. She may be at the top, but that's all she can be.
Please. We can judge Mr. Reza Pahlavi on the perits of his actions.
He does do a lot of writing and campaigning for the freedom for the people of Iran. While not actually grabbing a rifle and plugging a mullah, such writings do have some effect on encouraging the Iranians to organize themselves. Without some organized concerted effort, they have no chance for liberty.
Where he goes wrong lies in two points: First, we wants Americans to shoulder the burden of liberation while Iranians call all the shots. He is mistaken by thinking American lives are tools for liberty. We will help other peoples liberate themselves, but we cannot liberate people for them (it never works). Second, though I have not yet seen it directly in his writings (though my reading of his works is admittedly limited), there is the deep suspicion that he just wants the U.S. to install him into kingship in Iran. He is mistaken by thinking American lives are tools for individual political gain (Clinton had the same problem). Again, we will help other people liberate themselves, but we should not use our power to create new tyrants (that also never works).
The legally elected PM (a Dr. Massadegh - TIME's Man of the Year in '51) broke the back of the UK's sweetheart oil deal. The UK sued in the Hague and lost. Within two years MI6 and the CIA orchestrated the coup and put Reza in charge. That lasted only two days before the people of Iran chased him out. The CIA used the Army to put him back in. After thirty years of the Shah (and SAVAK) the people of Iran threw him out again.
Certain folks here like to paint the Reza years as a progressive utopia and place the blame for the revolution squarely on US shoulders. I've yet to read of any revolution, in any country, at any time in history that was executed by a populace that was content, respected, safe and hopeful.
The folks who want to bring the Reza "dynasty" back to power remind me of the elements in the Bay of Pigs who were holdovers from Batista's regime. Iran threw the shah out, I don't want to see one drop of US blood spilt to put his son back in his palace.
If Iran has had enough they will make a change, they've done it before.
The joke in all this is the presumption of a ruling dynasty. The shah we all came to know and love came to power in a coup d'etat in 1953.
The legally elected PM (a Dr. Massadegh - TIME's Man of the Year in '51) broke the back of the UK's sweetheart oil deal. The UK sued in the Hague and lost. Within two years MI6 and the CIA orchestrated the coup and put Reza in charge. That lasted only two days before the people of Iran chased him out. The CIA used the Army to put him back in. After thirty years of the Shah (and SAVAK) the people of Iran threw him out again.
Certain folks here like to paint the Reza years as a progressive utopia and place the blame for the revolution squarely on US shoulders. I've yet to read of any revolution, in any country, at any time in history that was executed by a populace that was content, respected, safe and hopeful.
The folks who want to bring the Reza "dynasty" back to power remind me of the elements in the Bay of Pigs who were holdovers from Batista's regime. Iran threw the shah out, I don't want to see one drop of US blood spilt to put his son back in his palace.
If Iran has had enough they will make a change, they've done it before.
It's worse than that. The joke in this is the presumption of all ruling dynasties.
The shah is just the successor of the original pahlavi shah, Reza Khan, who was a military officer and minister of war under the last ghajar king, but who led a coup and crowned himself shah. The ghajar dynasty usurped the throne from the zand dynasty, and so on and so forth.
Iran's recent history seems to be nothing more than a series of rulers being imposed and deposed by various outside powers (such as Russia, Britain, and the U.S.) and internal revolts. Add in ambitious religous nutballs, and you have a real mess.
____________________________________________________
And not one to which I would want to see US troops committed.
And not one to which I would want to see US troops committed.
Exactly. From what I've read, Mr. Reza Pahlavi's words are in the right place, but that's it. So far, he's All Talk, No Shock (and certainly no Awe).
He and the Iranian "liberators" better do something soon to free their country, or we'll have to solve our own Iran problem, and we'll do it our way to our satisfaction.
I seriously think the feces will hit the turbine in the coming May "elections" in Iran. With any luck, we'll then see the mettle of Mr. Reza Pahlavi, and F14 Pilot, and Khashayar. For their sake, I hope they won't still be just whining here on Free Republic.
I think that apathy is the true guiding factor among Iran's young. Articles decrying that and the significant (and growing) drug/AIDS and unemployment problems have been popping up here and there (more there than here on FR). A young population without a directed anger and with just enough creature comfort to make life livable are not likely to take up arms against a repressive government.
"Again, you just don't Get It. Telling someone they must call you "Prince" is not free speech. You are trying to enforce certain speech upon them."
-The one talking about forcing people to do anything is YOU. I'm talking about respecting others right to free speech and to their own beliefs and customs and not forcing them to submit to what I might think. I'm a Catholic, but I still call Protestant ministers "reverend", I call someone with a PhD "doctor" even if I don't know that they've "earned" their degree, just out of a little common courtesy.
"The revolution that puts a republican government in power is not force of arms to create a government, but force of arms to end a tyrrany. That is why it is a revolution instead of just another in a long line of wars for succession."
-Pardon me, but horse hockey! A republican government is still a government. The American government was not established by popular vote but by the fact that the British gave up the war. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; you can't have it both ways.
"If a republican government follows and government overthrow, by definition it holds its power from a mandate from the people. If it holds its power by any other means, it can hardly be called a Free Republic, no can it?"
Red China and North Korea are both republics, both replaced monarchies, would you call them free? Both had plenty of people to fight for them.
"Our own republic was not formed by a force of arms."
-But if you know your history you know it would not have been formed without them, nor without the mass expulsion of everyone who opposed the revolution. More people actually fled the American Revolution than fled the French one, but you probably didn't know that I'll bet.
"And the traditions of common law and individual rights you so boldly mention came about in England through successive revolutions against the monarchy, starting at Magna Carta, extending through the Protectorate of Cromwell, and the removal of James II from the throne."
-This is rich, only you could consider the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, where everything from dancing to Christmas was illegal, to be a good thing.
"Jefferson (as well as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and many many others) are the Americans who wrote on why we did this. They came out and said the foundation of common law and individual rights is the inalienable fact of the inherent equality of all mankind (something the english never managed to complete)."
-Actually, Adams and many other founding fathers said openly that they considered the British government to be the best in the world.
"Who said anything about "peering into someone's soul"? Only you."
-Actually, you did, by claiming to know the true worth of people you have never met simply because of a title they hold.
"Spoken like a true believer democrat. You simply do not understand the nature of democracy."
-Actually I do, you don't seem to though. Democracy simply means the people rule, but as you seem to be unaware, we do not live in a democracy, but rather a republic. If we did live in a democracy, there would be no need for a president at all.
"First off, Germany under Hitler could hardly be called a democracy, despite elections. The same goes for the Communists, whether in Russia, China, or Spain."
-You were talking about republics, not democracies, or are you getting them confused? Of course none of these were democratic, but it was in a republic, by the electoral process that Nazi Germany was established and no Communist government could ever have existed anywhere were it not for the support of a large portion (usually a 'majority') fighting to put it in place; a fact which underlines the point that people can be manipulated and that democracy and republicanism are not the answer to every problem.
"In a tyrrany, it matters little whether the tyrant is called "king", "fuhrer", "chairman", or "party secretery". King is just the traditional english language word for tyrant. And no matter what you claim, they can hardly be called nations of free people."
-But that is exactly what you are claiming, you are claiming that the title of someone can make people slaves.
"In each case, the larval democracy failed because it didn't base itself first upon a fundamental basis of the recognition of human equality and individual rights."
-Actually in every case the equality of people was mentioned in the founding documents just as it was in ours. In fact, Ho Chi Minh copied our Declaration of Independence almost word for word.
"Thirdly, you only look at recent history and cherry pick the cases you think most favorable to your case."
-If anyone is cherry-picking it is YOU. Perhaps we should go back further then...was the French Revolution good for world peace? Did the Mexican revolution bring peace and democracy? How many cases would be sufficient, you seem to so easily shrug off the 20 million Russians and 70 million Chinese killed by republican revolutions.
"What about the 100 years war fought for the ambitions of monarchs? What about the Wars of the Roses? Before the recent examples you depict, you would be hard pressed to find examples of wars that are not caused by the ambitions of monarchs or other rulers."
-If you knew anything about history you would know that the Hundred Years War consisted of only about 3 major battles in all that time. Wars of that period were not "total wars" and involved small numbers of people. It is also nonsensical to say that all wars were caused by monarchs, considering monarchs were all there was at that time. You are the one saying your ideal government is perfect, I've never said such a thing about any government.
"I am not telling anyone else they cannot call the man a king, but I am not letting them tell me I have to."
-So when did the Shah's son make this demand on you?
"Which it is. If you don't agree, why are you here?"
-Classic freedom loving attitude, "think like me or get out!"
"Not true. A few tyrranies do not constitute "the rest of the world". And tyrranies can hardly be said to be legitimate speakers for their people. What about the many billions of individual people around the world who desire to come to the United States and be free themselves?"
-Very true, in case you havn't noticed, there are more than a few tyrannies in the world and more than a few people in liberal, democratic, royalty-hating republics that despise the United States. There are countries all over Africa, Asia and Latin America that have copied our government almost to the letter and yet failed miserably. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that what a government or a leader is called is almost meaningless as to things like peace and prosperity, yet this doesn't surprise me coming from someone who thinks anyone who uses the word "king" is a slave.
"Again, you do not understand the nature of freedom. We don't have to do anything. We need only wait. If other people want freedom enough, they will overthrow their governments and gain it for themselves. We can help them, but we can't do it for them."
-Again, you do not understand. Did we just wait for Germans to overthrow the Kaiser, or for the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam? We've been waiting and "helping" countries like Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea etc for decades. Doesn't seem to be working does it?
"Again with the Not Getting It, Again with the Not Getting It, Again with the Not Getting It, Again with the Not Getting It"
-I can see you are one of those who thinks everyone that does not agree with you must be stupid (or a slave!). It must be so hard on you to be surrounded by so many dummies.
Once again: I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I am just refusing to allow anyone to tell me or make me call anyone a "king". Why can't you figure that out? It's really very simple.
I'm a Catholic, but I still call Protestant ministers "reverend",
And I'm not telling you not to. I'm just saying I don't have to (although "reverend" is in fact an earned title - people are not born reverends).
I call someone with a PhD "doctor" even if I don't know that they've "earned" their degree,
The title of PhD is supposed to be earned, regardless of how someone comes by it. Again, that is my point. Why can I not convey to you this simple concept?
If you know someone who calls themself "doctor", but you know for a fact they did not earn the title, do you still call them "doctor"? I don't.
The title of "king", on the other hand, is by definition unearned, and therefore invalid. And I don't call people it either, except for two exceptions: The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., which is his name, not his title. And Elvis is The King (a title which, at least in my opinion, was definitely earned).
just out of a little common courtesy.
A little etymology will do you some good. The word "courteous" comes from a description of how one is supposed to behave at "court". Specifically, the "royal court" of a "king". Since free people are not obliged by "kingship", the whole concept of "royal court" is meaningless, and, by definition, not applicable.
Pardon me, but horse hockey! A republican government is still a government. The American government was not established by popular vote but by the fact that the British gave up the war. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; you can't have it both ways.
PARDON ME, but you are absolutely wrong on this. Get your facts straight. The revolution was won in 1781 with the defeat of Cornwallis (it took the British a few years to realize they lost). The Constitution was drafted in 1787, six years later. In the interim, the government of the liberated colonies (remember, there was no such thing as the United States at this point) operated under the Articles of Confederation. Only that short lived government form could even remotely qualify under your argument. The United States Constitution and our Republican form of government were directly created out of a concerted effort of the people to create a government for themselves, and not out of force of arms as you suggest. The War for Independence was just that, a war to free ourselves from the tyrrany of a monarchist government. Our government came later.
Oh, and the British were in fact defeated. They did not just "give up".
Do they still teach history these days? Or do people just muddle on with what cartoons tell them on television?
> If a republican government follows and government overthrow, by definition it holds its power from a mandate from the people. If it holds its power by any other means, it can hardly be called a Free Republic, no can it?
Red China and North Korea are both republics, both replaced monarchies, would you call them free? Both had plenty of people to fight for them.
I guess there is just no point in discussing the nature of freedom and government with someone who is unable to distinguish the difference between communist tyrranies (regardless of what they call themselves) and a free republic. If you never learn the difference, God help you.
> Our own republic was not formed by a force of arms.
But if you know your history you know it would not have been formed without them, nor without the mass expulsion of everyone who opposed the revolution. More people actually fled the American Revolution than fled the French one, but you probably didn't know that I'll bet.
Wrong again. See above. And you can hardly win a war against tyrrany without elmiminating the tyrrany. I suppose you think we can also win a war on terrorism without getting rid of terrorists. You seem to think the fact that eliminating tyrranies often requires bloodshed to be the fault of the people fighting for freedom instead of correctly placing the blame firmly on the tyrrany. Are we at fault for waging our war on terrorism, or are the terrorists? I guess we should have just stayed good little subjects, because otherwise someone might have been hurt.
Also, the "loyalists" had a choice. They coulds stand tall and be free, or they could go and continue to be slaves. On of the few rights unavailable to the free person is the right to remain a slave (by definition if by no other reason).
> And the traditions of common law and individual rights you so boldly mention came about in England through successive revolutions against the monarchy, starting at Magna Carta, extending through the Protectorate of Cromwell, and the removal of James II from the throne.
This is rich, only you could consider the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, where everything from dancing to Christmas was illegal, to be a good thing.
Oh Gawd. More ignorance, distraction, and hyperbole. My single point was that the puritan revolt against the monarchy and the protestant reformation firmly established the political powers of parliament and limited the power of the monarchy. Regardless of whatever else came out of that period, these were good steps on the road to individual rights and freedoms.
And you, who seem to want to find such moral equivalence between our government and communist tyrranies seem bent on calling the protestant reformation completely evil because of the tyrranies of the Cromwell dictatorship. The dictatorship of Cromwell came after the revolt proper, and like most dictorships was formed out of the weakness of the nascent democracy. If you actually knew your history, you'd know that such dictatorships, whether communist, fascist, or puritan, come about through the overthrow of weak democracies. They almost never directly overthrow monarchies themselves. Although the dictator himself usually has a hand in the revolution and failed democracy, his later grab for power does not itself impugn the democracy or original revolution.
> Jefferson (as well as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and many many others) are the Americans who wrote on why we did this. They came out and said the foundation of common law and individual rights is the inalienable fact of the inherent equality of all mankind (something the english never managed to complete).
Actually, Adams and many other founding fathers said openly that they considered the British government to be the best in the world.
Would you believe it? Wrong again. In the very few quotes to that effect, they were declaiming the british government as the best yet, and they were referring to parliament (a democratic institution in case you missed it), in any case. They were NOT referring to the monarchy. They were, in fact, contrasting the democratic institution of the british parliament with the absolute monarchies of other lands.
Next time, actually include the quote to back up your claim. Then we can all be sure you are not misconstruing it (like you have misread so many of my replies to you). As an example:
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your consul, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.
-- Samuel Adams
Now there was a man who understood freedom and its value.
> Who said anything about "peering into someone's soul"? Only you.
Actually, you did, by claiming to know the true worth of people you have never met simply because of a title they hold.
Wrong again. And again trying to put words in my mouth. I said (which you would know if you actualy bothered with the step of comprehending what you read) that a person's title means nothing about their true worth. Go back and re-read; with a little effort, you'll eventually Get It. The title of "king" is unearned and meaningless. That means it doesn't make a person any better or worse than any other person. Only their actions can do that. And as a free person, I do not have to recognise meaningless titles, only individual actions.
> Spoken like a true believer democrat. You simply do not understand the nature of democracy.
Actually I do, you don't seem to though. Democracy simply means the people rule, but as you seem to be unaware, we do not live in a democracy, but rather a republic. If we did live in a democracy, there would be no need for a president at all.
Actually, what you just said proves you do not understand the nature of a democracy (from demos meaning people and cracy meaning rule). Or even its definition. A republic (from res, meaning thing, and public, meaning of the people) is a form of democracy. So is a simple democracy (the so called "one man one vote" form). For that matter, so is mob rule (though it's a particularly nasty and unstable form of democracy). You, and many other people, fall into this trap by incorrectly thinking of a simple democracy as the only form of a democracy. All republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics. And not all governments that call themselves republics are republics.
> First off, Germany under Hitler could hardly be called a democracy, despite elections. The same goes for the Communists, whether in Russia, China, or Spain.
You were talking about republics, not democracies, or are you getting them confused?
Again, it is you who are confused. Look above.
Of course none of these were democratic, but it was in a republic, by the electoral process that Nazi Germany was established and no Communist government could ever have existed anywhere were it not for the support of a large portion (usually a 'majority') fighting to put it in place;
Wrong again! With a batting average like that, you really out to quit trying to play in the majors.
They weren't republics anymore. When one monarch overthrows another, they usually take the title of king and maintain the structure of the monarchy. Thus, one monarchy replaces another. When a dictator overthrows a democracy (republican or otherwise), they also often keep the structure of the overthrown government, but they are no longer republics or even democracies. If you still can't tell the difference, here's a hint: you can't call the fascist dictatorship of Hitler a "thing of the people", can you? Therefore, it was not a republic.
And again, in these dictatorships, the majority fought for freedom and democracy. Then the ambitious minority overthrew the fledgling democracy, and established a dictatorship.
a fact which underlines the point that people can be manipulated and that democracy and republicanism are not the answer to every problem.
My point. I believe I said that the objective of our revolution was liberty and freedom, and democracy is a symptom and tool of freedom. Go back and check the thread. You'll find it. We established a democracy because we were free, not the other way around. However our republican democracy has only lasted this long and not fallen into dictatorship like so many others because first and foremost, we established the facts of individual equality, sovereignity, and the rights thereof which even our republican democracy itself is not empowered to revoke (despite the fact that we have lost our way and it has tried). And the whole concept of monarchy is utterly antithetical to these founding principles of equality, individual sovereignity, and the rights thereof!
> In a tyrrany, it matters little whether the tyrant is called "king", "fuhrer", "chairman", or "party secretery". King is just the traditional english language word for tyrant. And no matter what you claim, they can hardly be called nations of free people.
But that is exactly what you are claiming, you are claiming that the title of someone can make people slaves.
Wrong again! Is English your first language? I ask merely out of curiosity.
Your claim doesn't even make any sense. I said the title is meaningless no matter what the title is (king, fuhrer, etc.). The word "king" does not make people slaves, but only slaves recognise the word "king". There is a difference. You could say the slaves make the title.
> In each case, the larval democracy failed because it didn't base itself first upon a fundamental basis of the recognition of human equality and individual rights.
Actually in every case the equality of people was mentioned in the founding documents just as it was in ours. In fact, Ho Chi Minh copied our Declaration of Independence almost word for word.
Actually they may have been mentioned. But that does not mean established or adhered to. Ho could quote the Declaration of Independence all he wants. Remember the six years between the Revolution and the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence is not where our liberties are set as the foundation of our governement. The Bill of Rights is. And Ho was not exactly enamoured of the concepts of individual equality and rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. For example, you absolutely cannot tell me Ho supported the right of the individual to keep and bear arms as numerated in our Second Ammendment. And you sure as hell can't claim he supported the free individual's right to property as enumerated in our Fifth Ammendment.
> Thirdly, you only look at recent history and cherry pick the cases you think most favorable to your case.
If anyone is cherry-picking it is YOU. Perhaps we should go back further then...was the French Revolution good for world peace? Did the Mexican revolution bring peace and democracy?
Again you are wrong. And again you are only cherry picking recent history. I, meanwhile, have the sum whole of history (back to when the first senior protohuman decided to call himeslf king) to make my point. And again you are blaming the blood shed by people struggling (though sometimes failing) for freedom on the struggling oppressed instead of on the oppressors they fought. Do you expect tyrants to abdicate willingly if the people ask nicely?
How many cases would be sufficient, you seem to so easily shrug off the 20 million Russians and 70 million Chinese killed by republican revolutions.
And again you are unable to tell the difference between a republic and a communist tyrrany. And you again confuse people murdered to maintain the power of a communist tyrrany with lives lost to overthrow a monarch. I beg you, for your own sake, learn the difference.
> What about the 100 years war fought for the ambitions of monarchs? What about the Wars of the Roses? Before the recent examples you depict, you would be hard pressed to find examples of wars that are not caused by the ambitions of monarchs or other rulers.
If you knew anything about history you would know that the Hundred Years War consisted of only about 3 major battles in all that time. Wars of that period were not "total wars" and involved small numbers of people.
And if you actually knew your history (instead of just lazily and incorrectly decaliming the ignorance of others), you would know that the 100 years war also involved a lot of minor raids and struggles, personal cruelties done "in the name of the king" by individuals outside the major battles and major forces. And even though they did not follow the modern concept of "total war", the modern concept of "total war" is itself a reaction to the Napoleonic invention of the Professional Army, and the limitation of battles to such. So called commoners did suffer in the 100 Years War, and the Wars of the Roses, despite what you might think you know about them. Any other conclusion is naieve.
It is also nonsensical to say that all wars were caused by monarchs, considering monarchs were all there was at that time.
Wrong again! To use an example you might have learned in High School History: the Peloponnesian War. Look it up.
Also look into pre imperial Rome. And the Icelanders Allthing. For a truly refreshing study, check out the sophisticated ancient democracies of northern India. In each case, you'll find that when they went to war, it was instigated by an ambitious tyrant.
And before you claim these weren't democracies, remember that your limited concept of a simple democracy is not the only type of democracy.
You'll also find (in most cases) these democracies failed because they were not based upon the basic principle that all people are equal (like our is).
You are the one saying your ideal government is perfect, I've never said such a thing about any government.
Again with putting words in my mouth. Please stop doing that. I said our ideal government is better, never perfect. And I also said the government we actually have is far from ideal, but that is mostly because we have fallen away from the founding principles our government and society are based upon.
> I am not telling anyone else they cannot call the man a king, but I am not letting them tell me I have to.
So when did the Shah's son make this demand on you?
He, personally, has not. I am also not sure he is demanding it of anyone (which is much to his credit as a human being). However, other people who posted on this very thread have demanded it, either because they think I should recognize their false hierarchy or because they think I should comply with their false ideals of "courtesy". Go back and look for yourself.
Which it is. If you don't agree, why are you here?
Classic freedom loving attitude, "think like me or get out!"
Again with the hyperbole. Did I say "get out"? I asked why you are here. I ahve alsways wondered how people can so glibly enjoy the freedoms they have without understanding the nature or basis for those freedoms. I suspect this is one of the ways some democracies are eventually overthrown by tyranies.
Very true, in case you havn't noticed, there are more than a few tyrannies in the world and more than a few people in liberal, democratic, royalty-hating republics that despise the United States.
But they do not despise the United States for what it should be as laid out in our Constitution. The despise us for what we have done that departs from our Constitution. Envy also plays a significant part.
There are countries all over Africa, Asia and Latin America that have copied our government almost to the letter and yet failed miserably.
And which did not found themselves on a basic principle of individual equality. And which also did not form governments like what we should be, but governments as we are.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend that what a government or a leader is called is almost meaningless as to things like peace and prosperity, yet this doesn't surprise me coming from someone who thinks anyone who uses the word "king" is a slave.
No. You don't seem to realize that terms for leader like "king", by definition, mean an inequality between people. And any government that does not base itself on the basic facts of individual equality, individual sovereignity, and the rights thereof, cannot be sad to be free. The President may be our leader, but he is not our better.
Moreover, here, I think, is the major problem with your philosophy. You specifically do not mention freedom when you say "peace and prosperity". But freedom is what this discussion is all about, not "peace and prosperity". And with that in mind, here's another way to identify a slave: A slave is someone who will trade freedom for peace and prosperity. It's a sad fact of history that people who make that trade end up with neither. Slaves are not defined by a lack of wealth or peace, but by a lack of freedom. Plain and simple.
Again, you do not understand. Did we just wait for Germans to overthrow the Kaiser, or for the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam? We've been waiting and "helping" countries like Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea etc for decades. Doesn't seem to be working does it?
And again, you just don't Get It. I did not say anything about what we have done, only what we need to do. Also, we did not enter World War One to depose the Kaiser, that was a happy result for the Germans. The reparations demanded by the allies after the war, however, created the stage for Hitler's rise. Is that what you mean by "helping" other fledgling democracies?
Also, despite what Bush might say, we did not remove Saddam for the sole purpose of "liberating the Iraqis"
And explain to me how we've been "helping" the communist tyrranies of Cuba, North Korea, etc.? What the heck do you mean by that?
I can see you are one of those who thinks everyone that does not agree with you must be stupid.
No, I do not think you are stupid. You are confused and suffer from many false preconceptions, but that's not the same thing (and easily cured with a little effort on your part).
(or a slave!)
I never said people who disagree with me are slaves. Go back and look. I said people who subscribe to the fiction of monarchy are slaves (and that includes the monarchs themselves). They live in a state where they believe some people are better than others through accident, and that is antithetical to freedom. Other people have disagreed with me on other subjects (sometimes even successfully), and I do not think they are slaves.
It must be so hard on you to be surrounded by so many dummies.
Again with the hyperbole. I am hardly surrounded. It's difficult to be surrounded by just one person. I have specifically been asked elsewhere why I even bother to debate (if it can be called that) with you. I myself am not sure. I think it's probably because you actually do seem pretty intelligent (though grossly misinformed and with many false preconceptions), and there is hope for you (of course, how you respond to this comment could prove me wrong).
Finally, I urge you:
Long Live a Free and Peaceful Persia !
It's a nice thought, but unless they are willing to settle for the freedom without the peace, they're not getting either. Unfortunate fact of life.
I think you are just wasting your time. You have no idea what you are talking about and you are completely gone insane. I wish you a quick relief!
Let me just tell you one thing and close this topic
Iranians won't buy the BOMBING freedom. They will keep their Mullahs if the US is gonna bomb them and free them. It is clear and I hope you wont discuss this any more. We dont need liberal or radical comments on Iran. Thanks and bye
These people have problems understanding other cultures
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.