Iran and Iraq - from Dictatorship to Theocracy

[question everything]

Both countries were secular under the Shah and under Saddam Hussein. Specifically, women went to school, held jobs, dressed as they liked and were equal citizens.

Then came the mullahs in Iran and whoever runs Iraq now and women are expected to hide behind misshapen black cover, always in danger of having their faces slashed or covered with acid.

I remember the 1979 revolution in Iran. Women were among the protesters, I think that they did wear black covers then, and I remember wondering, after the revolution, how they liked it. Actually, at first, Iran had a moderate prime minister (or was it a president?) - do not remember his name - but then he was thrown into jail and later executed.

Several years ago, Iraq was debating on building its new government and the role of women was a sticking point. I don't know how it ended. This is a topic that would surface once and then would disappear from our media.

So when I hear about the uprise in Iran now, I have to wonder: what do they want? Mousavi may not be as bombastic as Ahmadinejad, but both of them would obey what the mullahs tell them. Regardless of who will be declared the winner, theocracy will continue to rule Iran, pursuing of nuclear weapon will continue - it was Mousavi who purchased the first nuclear material from that Pakistani Kahn(?) - and women will continue to be placed in the back, to do as they are told and to fulfill their role as making babies.

[backscatter712]

1. It's not just Ahmadinthehead getting thrown out - the mullahs are likely to get the boot too.

Khamenei exposed himself as a liar, fraud and murderer when he endorsed Ahmadinthehead and sicced the Basij on the populace. His attempts to clothe himself in the trappings of Allah will do nothing but piss off the people of Iran even more.

Even if the clerics and the Guardian Council and office of Supreme Leader survive this revolution, they will end up on a very short leash.

That's my out-of-my-ass prediction at least...

[blm]

2. Wasn't that happening here, too? Fundamentalism by POLITICAL DESIGN, imo.

.

[AntiFascist]

3. The reason the mullahs took root in the government in the first place...

was because the American CIA and the British MI6 overthrew a democratically elected leader and replaced him with the Shah, in order to take control of Iranian oil interests. Few Americans are aware of this, but as was just reported by Rachel Maddow, every Iranian knows this. Here are the details, please read it and learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax

In 2000, Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, said that intervention by the U.S. in the internal affairs of Iran was a setback for democratic government.<28><29> This anti-democratic coup d’état was "a critical event in post-war world history" that destroyed Iran’s secular parliamentary democracy, by re-installing the monarchy of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as absolute ruler,<30> replacing an elected native democracy with a pro-foreign monarchic dictatorship. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the pro-Western Shah and replaced the monarchy with an anti-Western Islamic Republic.<31>

[question everything]

4. From 1953??

Still, why replace one form of repression with another?

[AntiFascist]

5. The mullahs taking power are the direct result of Western influence...

in the Middle East. The Shah was pro-Western and the Islamic Republic came to power in order to take control away from the West. The problem is that certain Islamic figures actually supported the Shah taking power because they knew it was taking control away from a non-sectarian, democratic government that may have sided with the "godless" communists.