So what's up with Iran?
Doesn't look good over there. I don't know what the reformist platform exactly is, but a lot of the time movements like this are Utopian socialist fantasy revolutions, and don't actually have popular support, but do have popular 'force.'
I am not saying that this is actually the case.
On the other hand, the Mullahs seem intent on having the revolutionary guards beat women in the streets for demonstrating. Obviously this strongly erodes the loyalty of that military arm and loyalty of the people, thus destabilizing the government.
The government can't use the excuse of governmental stability to kill innocent people.
Instead, the theocracy should be able to determine what is good and true about the movement (such as freedom of speech and assembly, and a peaceful cooperative place in international community) and what is not (even more socialist policies... these could be attractive what with China being so close... but ussually getting there entails killing on a mass scale and a massive famine, and then ongoing oppression normally worse then exists in Iran right now... so that is to be avoided)
Again, I am not accusing the reformist movement of being bent on strong socialism, that was implied by some new source without going into a great deal of detail. Ahmadinejad was already having some influence in this area.
The point is, that the nature of Iran is such that if the clerics and denounce unnecessary power and strong armed leadership, even to a limited extent, and be obedient to the good desires of their people, they can surely have a peaceful resolution here, and it isn't too late. Otherwise their choices aren't so good.
I'm appalled that Iran has taken to imprisoning peaceful clerics... that is especially appalling, I must say. Shooting and beating women and imprisoning clerics... Iran and Ayatollah Khameini, I had thought better of you.
Doesn't look good over there. I don't know what the reformist platform exactly is, but a lot of the time movements like this are Utopian socialist fantasy revolutions, and don't actually have popular support, but do have popular 'force.'
I am not saying that this is actually the case.
On the other hand, the Mullahs seem intent on having the revolutionary guards beat women in the streets for demonstrating. Obviously this strongly erodes the loyalty of that military arm and loyalty of the people, thus destabilizing the government.
The government can't use the excuse of governmental stability to kill innocent people.
Instead, the theocracy should be able to determine what is good and true about the movement (such as freedom of speech and assembly, and a peaceful cooperative place in international community) and what is not (even more socialist policies... these could be attractive what with China being so close... but ussually getting there entails killing on a mass scale and a massive famine, and then ongoing oppression normally worse then exists in Iran right now... so that is to be avoided)
Again, I am not accusing the reformist movement of being bent on strong socialism, that was implied by some new source without going into a great deal of detail. Ahmadinejad was already having some influence in this area.
The point is, that the nature of Iran is such that if the clerics and denounce unnecessary power and strong armed leadership, even to a limited extent, and be obedient to the good desires of their people, they can surely have a peaceful resolution here, and it isn't too late. Otherwise their choices aren't so good.
I'm appalled that Iran has taken to imprisoning peaceful clerics... that is especially appalling, I must say. Shooting and beating women and imprisoning clerics... Iran and Ayatollah Khameini, I had thought better of you.
