The Iranian military is, if anything, vastly better disciplined and more ruthless than the Syrian military.
Moreover, thanks to their oil money and a number of other factors, they’ve always been in a much stronger position than the Assad crime family or the Alawite minority.
An open revolt would be vastly less likely to succeed.
I’m reminded of how early 20th Century American historians insisted that the black slaves of South Carolina in the 18th and 19th Century chose to be slaves since they outnumbered the whites of South Carolina.
It’s always been easy for a well-armed, disciplined minority to rule over and oppress the majority. It’s happened throughout history. Sometimes the minority has been based on race(I.E. the Spartans and the Afrikaners) and sometimes it’s been an ideological minority(I.E. the Bolsheviks and those following Khomeinie’s doctrines).
It is supremely arrogant to listen to modern day westerners who have no idea what it’s like to grow up in country with a well-equipped secret police and a government willing to torture talk about people “choosing” to be ruled.
The truth is the East Germans didn’t “choose” to be ruled by Honecker, the Russians didn’t “choose” to be ruled by Stalin, the Black South Africans didn’t choose to be ruled by Malan, and Iranians haven’t chosen to be ruled by the Ayatollahs.
I can claim that because they don’t care as much as you to have passed laws that meet with your standards. If they cared to the level that you want, they would already have laws that met your standards, thus they don’t care.
Ah, so we must pick up the white man’s burden to teach ethics and civilization to those savages. You do see how condescending this sounds, right? What animal cruelty laws do you feel the ‘uncivilized’ world is lacking that the civilized world needs to educate and impose on them exactly anyway? Banning foie gras? Europe can’t even agree on that, it’s banned in many European countries but France’s position is they can take our foie gras from our dead, cold hands. French law states that “Foie gras belongs to the protected cultural and gastronomical heritage of France.” Cockfighting okay? It’s illegal in all 50 states in the US, but a lot of countries considers it part of their cultural heritage. Spain thinks it’s icky and bans it outside the Canary Islands (local cultural thing), but is positively in love with the idea of bullfighting as blood sport. Slaughtering cats and dogs for food ok? A lot of Asia thinks so, but it’s icky to a lot of Europe and the Americas. Lest we get high and mighty about how much more civilized Europe is than Asia in this regard, the slaughter of cattle is illegal in much of India, but try to get the Americas and Europe to give up their Big Macs. Hell, it’s only recently that the means of manufacture in modern industrial slaughterhouses in the West has come under fire for the amount of cruelty it uses.
Again, I can assume that the rest of the world doesn’t care about as much or in the manner that you wish because it objectively doesn’t. If it did, you wouldn’t feel the need to ‘educate’ them out of their uncivilized, unethical barbarity to have the right view (yours) on the matter.
By the by, I’m a vegetarian and haven’t eaten meat in any form in almost 20 years. However I don’t feel the need to impose my beliefs on such matters to the rest of the world. Do you eat meat? Because though I personally consider that to be animal cruelty, I don’t feel the need to make it illegal here, much less in the entire world.
In the US, think about how things get done in the area you live in. Who is more responsive to the needs of the citizens and their issues?
Is it the city/county government? The State government? The Federal government?
Former Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill coined the phrase, “All politics is local.”
Things that matter get taken care of at the local level. The farther you get away from local government the less representation and problem solving you get.
A world government will add yet another layer of bureaucracy that is not responsive to your needs.
I suppose if such a body was needed at all, it wouldn’t be to run the lives of individuals, but to resolve disputes between member states, following procedures that are voted on by representatives of said member states.
Well, for starters it took several decades and he was only overthrown when he was dying and had been abandoned by his allies. Beyond that, the Mullahs have managed the combination of granting greater freedom the the populace while being vastly more ruthless towards dissenters and Savak never had access to the kind of technology that the Basij, the CPVPV, and other government organizations have.
Anyway, please.
Based on your idiotic logic, the South African Blacks of the 90s wanted to be free while those of the 60s chose to live under Apartheid.
Anyway, I’d recommend learning more about both the human condition and the various countries you make stupid pronouncement a about before holding Middle Easterners to different standards than Europeans.
So it’s your contention that it’s impossible, then? Or at least significantly more difficult than, say… Egypt? On a scale of Egypt to Impossible…
Yes… please, indeed.
I see no evidence you’re in position of any authority to evaluate the quality of my logic, in light of your own statements. Heck, right off the bat, you misunderstood and mischaracterized my point, trying for some knee-jerk racism analogy.
Your recommendation is noted but dismissed, thanks, on the basis of uselessness.
As a pure thought experiment open to everyone, suppose all the Ayatollahs and their supporting political structure suddenly dropped dead of natural causes (and in such a manner that the Iranian population accepted such without resorting to conspiracy-theory beliefs about foreigners). Canada steps up and says “here’s a copy of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with ‘Canada’ crossed out and ‘Iran’ written in. If you hold a national referendum for all citizens 18 and older approving it, we’ll help you implement it.”
So where is Iran (or “Iranada”, if you prefer) five years later when the parliamentary term ends and it’s time to vote again?
As mentioned, since I’ve been rather severely limited in how I can respond to your claims of the supposed cultural inferiority of Iranians, though you continue to display little understanding of them or their culture, I see no point in continuing this discussion.
To continue this conversation would be pointless and grossly disrespectful to Tom.
Beyond that its unfair to the other people on the thread who wish to discuss the OP rather than your implications that North Koreans choose to be ruled by the Kims, Russians chose to be ruled by Stalin and that South African blacks chose to be ruled by the Nationalist Party.
If you wish to continue this conversation I’d recommend taking it to the Pit.
So let’s say the Ayatollas drop dead and Iran quickly comes up with its own constitution which is in numerous ways similar to the Canadian Charter (not that this needs be done deliberately - I’m just assuming that all the good stuff about freedom of speech and the press and religion and the prevention of official discrimination on the basis of race, gender and orientation - as well as a few dozen other key principles - are pretty much the base requirements of a modern liberal democracy - the main advantage of using the Canadian version is that it’s already written out and everything).
If it’s still an arrogant proposal then… well, too bad, it’s arrogant. Feel free not to address it on that or any other basis if you wish.
Any sort of world government is going to be extremely loose-even a hypothetical Union of the West I’ve proposed encompassing only First World countries would be far looser than the European Union. Thus in such a world government people can simply move between regions with significantly different laws.
A world government worth its salt would have the power to intervene in civil wars, ethnic violence, and revolutions within countries.
[/QUOTE]
The US federal government is dysfunctional due to the ideological orientation of one of the two major parties, in the past it has been quite effective. And the EU is simply going through growing pains, much as what the United States went through went it first established its federal government.
The trends leading to the former are disappearing or have disappeared while the trends leading toward the latter are continuing apace.
So should we dissolve the federal (and possibly the state) governments and regroup ourselves into local communes?
More and more countries getting nukes means the trends leading to the former are getting worse. As for the trends leading to the latter-- there are none. In fact, if anything, they are getting worse. There are more separate countries today than there were 25 years ago.
There is no longer any cold war between two nuclear powers who can wreck the world. Meanwhile globalization and free trade is continuing apace-it doesn’t really matter if they are more independent countries as long as other multinational organizations exist or there are greater economic or political links than before.
A nuclear war is much more likely between non-super powers. We had MAD during the cold war, that made nuclear war unlikely.
No. Economics is not government. There are not greater “political links” than there was before. The more countries, the fewer political links. There is no trend towards world government as envisioned in the OP. Countries are much more likely to split up than to merge. Just wait until China starts to explode.