Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

Once again Copperline you leave me stunned !! The West supported the Shah of Iran , now Iran is ruled by a bunch of Theocrats that deprive their people , as ALL MUSLIM nations do , of their fundamental liberties , one of them the choice of faith .

Exactly Militiades The Pahlavi regime was, by any stretch of the imagination, anti-democratic and authoritarian if not to say brutal (and supported by the west as you say. In Iran during the 1960s and 1970s there was a strong and growing democratic and socialist and trade union movements which the Shah's apparatus of internal repression slaughtered. Having annihilated the internal democratic and secular opposition - with the active assistance of the USA and UK, the last flickering lights of which contributed to the 1979 revolution, all that remained in effective opposition was ... (from safe in exile in France) Khomeini's forces of reaction and Islamic fundamentalism.

Something very similar nearly happened in Turkey - military coup followed by brutal repression and sustained attack on democratic and socialist movements, followed by the rise of Islamist political movements - all with the connivance and active support of the west.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu,
It is not accidental that many of those states which were once secular, in which democratic forces were trying to grow, had the misfortune of being crushed by political forces supported by the west. If you look at the nascent democratic, socialist and secular movements which arose in the middle east in the 1960s and 1970s were ALL crushed by anti-democratic, authoritarian, often military, governments supported by the west (and occasionally by the Soviet Union). In some cases fundamentalist Islamic states were supported from the outset eg Saudi Arabia, at other times fundementalist Islamic governments were the direct result of the massacres of democrats, socialists and trade unionists eg Iran. Turkey nearly fell into that last group and is still struggling with the twin legacy of military rule and Islamism.

No one denies that fact CopperLine, that the west has not helped the situations in the countries we are talking about. But the question is, what came first, the egg or the chicken to say that all the failures of said countries are the faults of the west. Could it not be possible that, the west was able to exploit only what was bad to begin with, with said countries, by paying off the influential and the elites to do the west's "dirty work" on their own people. Just because someone is willing to pay me money, does not mean I should become a whore. Well, the same can be said about said countries, whether it was hard cash, political positions, or Military hardware offered by the West to keep True Democracy and other things I mentioned away from their own citizens. Greed, Power and Corruption is not isolated to said countries, but it is universal, but it is not as inherent as they are in the countries we are talking about, because it is almost part of their culture, and the only way to break away from being part of a "corrupt society" is to install power to the people as we have in the west, despite it's faults.

[zan]

Kikapu,
It is not accidental that many of those states which were once secular, in which democratic forces were trying to grow, had the misfortune of being crushed by political forces supported by the west. If you look at the nascent democratic, socialist and secular movements which arose in the middle east in the 1960s and 1970s were ALL crushed by anti-democratic, authoritarian, often military, governments supported by the west (and occasionally by the Soviet Union). In some cases fundamentalist Islamic states were supported from the outset eg Saudi Arabia, at other times fundementalist Islamic governments were the direct result of the massacres of democrats, socialists and trade unionists eg Iran. Turkey nearly fell into that last group and is still struggling with the twin legacy of military rule and Islamism.

No one denies that fact CopperLine, that the west has not helped the situations in the countries we are talking about. But the question is, what came first, the egg or the chicken to say that all the failures of said countries are the faults of the west. Could it not be possible that, the west was able to exploit only what was bad to begin with, with said countries, by paying off the influential and the elites to do the west's "dirty work" on their own people. Just because someone is willing to pay me money, does not mean I should become a whore. Well, the same can be said about said countries, whether it was hard cash, political positions, or Military hardware offered by the West to keep True Democracy and other things I mentioned away from their own citizens. Greed, Power and Corruption is not isolated to said countries, but it is universal, but it is not as inherent as they are in the countries we are talking about, because it is almost part of their culture, and the only way to break away from being part of a "corrupt society" is to install power to the people as we have in the west, despite it's faults.

You really are a poor deluded fool and I have lost my patience with you........I will let Copperline try to explain to you about the corruption and and culture that leads people to sell arms and to antagonise for their own gain and then jump on their high horses like you have...If you are a Turkish Cyopriot, like you say you are, then why is it not in your nature or culture.

And by the way...Adding " Despite it's faults" to the end does not absolve you of any undemocratic actions.

[miltiades]

The UN is undemocratic
Africa » Gambia » Bakau
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The United Nations was founded in 1944 after World War II by the allied forces at a time when they were very much flush with their victory. The allied forces included USA, Great Britain, Russia, China, and France.

The UN, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is an undemocratic and unjust organization. The other two have particularly discriminatory policies and will not allow an African or Asian to head them. Similarly, the allied forces denied Germany, Japan, Africa and Asia from being part of the Security Council as they referred to them as defeated nations.

We all know that the General Assembly is a toothless bulldog as any decision made there can be overturned by the Security Council. The impotence of the General Assembly is reflected in its inability to bring about peace in the DR Congo, Somalia, Darfur, not to mention Iraq. In other words, the UN belongs to the USA and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Despite its pretence of being an independent UN agency, its policies are generally dictated by the US.

Indeed, how can the international community expect only US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Great Britain and France to have complete monoply over nuclear weapons and to hold the rest of the world to ransom? This is an unacceptable situation. How can the UN deny the rest of the world the opportunity to acquire nuclear knowledge just because Washington, Paris and London feel that this should not be in the hands of the coloured races of the world?

To insist on having Iran’s nuclear work monitored by the IAEA is unfair and there can be no world peace if the international community shows weakness in the face of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We disagree with the French leader’s belief that nuclear Iran could threaten the world when the US is using its veto to launch an attack on other nations without any justification. The UN Security Council has no right to stop or monitor other nations’ nuclear progress if they claim to be advocates for democracy. Every nation has the ultimate right to seek scientific knowledge acquired through education.

Author: Daily Observer

Bullshit !!
The West has every right to defend democracy and keep at bay the nations who it considers a threat to civilization. As for you mate what on earth are you doing in the UK , dont you think that Afghanistan or perhaps Turkey would be more suited to your taste . Clear off join your new modern brave world and take as many like minded along with you.
LONG MA THE WEST FLOURISH AND OFFER THE THIRD WORLD A CHANCE OF A DECENT LIVING !!

[zan]

The UN is undemocratic
Africa » Gambia » Bakau
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The United Nations was founded in 1944 after World War II by the allied forces at a time when they were very much flush with their victory. The allied forces included USA, Great Britain, Russia, China, and France.

The UN, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is an undemocratic and unjust organization. The other two have particularly discriminatory policies and will not allow an African or Asian to head them. Similarly, the allied forces denied Germany, Japan, Africa and Asia from being part of the Security Council as they referred to them as defeated nations.

We all know that the General Assembly is a toothless bulldog as any decision made there can be overturned by the Security Council. The impotence of the General Assembly is reflected in its inability to bring about peace in the DR Congo, Somalia, Darfur, not to mention Iraq. In other words, the UN belongs to the USA and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Despite its pretence of being an independent UN agency, its policies are generally dictated by the US.

Indeed, how can the international community expect only US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Great Britain and France to have complete monoply over nuclear weapons and to hold the rest of the world to ransom? This is an unacceptable situation. How can the UN deny the rest of the world the opportunity to acquire nuclear knowledge just because Washington, Paris and London feel that this should not be in the hands of the coloured races of the world?

To insist on having Iran’s nuclear work monitored by the IAEA is unfair and there can be no world peace if the international community shows weakness in the face of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We disagree with the French leader’s belief that nuclear Iran could threaten the world when the US is using its veto to launch an attack on other nations without any justification. The UN Security Council has no right to stop or monitor other nations’ nuclear progress if they claim to be advocates for democracy. Every nation has the ultimate right to seek scientific knowledge acquired through education.

Author: Daily Observer

Bullshit !!
The West has every right to defend democracy and keep at bay the nations who it considers a threat to civilization. As for you mate what on earth are you doing in the UK , dont you think that Afghanistan or perhaps Turkey would be more suited to your taste . Clear off join your new modern brave world and take as many like minded along with you.
LONG MA THE WEST FLOURISH AND OFFER THE THIRD WORLD A CHANCE OF A DECENT LIVING !!

Defend democracy by destroying it and by double standards........

What you don't realise is that not all are as you portray them to be. You are a twisted old man that has no idea about the world and it's people. You ignore the wrongs in the west and highlight what goes on elsewhere because it makes you feel safe in your own little world. Small world for a small mind.

[Floda]

Miltiades, "******** !!"

[zan]

[Kikapu]

Can we conclude then, despite some trying to find excuses or reasons as to why, that nations whose flags have
Crescent & Stars as well as most other Muslim & Islamic states seem to have these things in common with each other, which are;

"anti True Democracy, anti Freedom of Speech, anti Free Press, anti Human Rights, Corrupt, Undeveloped and Poor, and mostly ruled by strong Military influence".

[zan]

Can we conclude then, despite some trying to find excuses or reasons as to why, that nations whose flags have
Crescent & Stars as well as most other Muslim & Islamic states seem to have these things in common with each other, which are;

"anti True Democracy, anti Freedom of Speech, anti Free Press, anti Human Rights, Corrupt, Undeveloped and Poor, and mostly ruled by strong Military influence".

No only you......Take a look at the list at the bottom of this Wiki page.....and see how many Crecents you see...... I know that I have slated Wiki but you can spend some time researching them and educating yourself.........

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

[Kikapu]

Can we conclude then, despite some trying to find excuses or reasons as to why, that nations whose flags have
Crescent & Stars as well as most other Muslim & Islamic states seem to have these things in common with each other, which are;

"anti True Democracy, anti Freedom of Speech, anti Free Press, anti Human Rights, Corrupt, Undeveloped and Poor, and mostly ruled by strong Military influence".

No only you......Take a look at the list at the bottom of this Wiki page.....and see how many Crecents you see...... I know that I have slated Wiki but you can spend some time researching them and educating yourself.........

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

You just gave us a list of countries who were or are in Dictatorship. What is that have to do with what we are talking about. Just because Dictatorship has ended in most of those countries, does not mean they are thriving True Democracies and are not in violation with my above list. Turkey is a prime example, where their present constitution was written during the military rule back in 1983. In any case, thank you for making my point for me with the site you have provided, that most nations were Muslim or Islamic. Flags with Crescent and Star only represent about 5% of the world's countries and just because some are not under
Direct Dictatorship, does not make them thriving True Democracies either, but why don't you do us a favour, and tell us which country either with Crescent & Star in their flags, or a Muslim & Islamic states who does not violate the list I gave above, but are in uniform with countries in the west.. Surely there must be one or two that you can point out to us Zan.

I'll be waiting.!