With the small difference being that the UK is a democracy with freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly and the most powerful individual within the system (the Prime Minister) can be freely criticized without fear and faces popular elections every few years, rather than being a Shia male cleric who is the Supreme Leader-for-Life and who cannot be popularly elected or criticized and who has the final say and effective veto power over all key matters. Other than that, you hit the nail on the head, Mr. Mark.
You should add that: ....The UK is a democracy with the Hyde Park that had gotten its reaches from plundering other countries and exploitation of slaves, as well as a "democracy" with the most developed world's surveillance to monitor its inhibitants, and "eternal" monarchy which is not chosen by elections.
"You should add that: ....The UK is a democracy with the Hyde Park that had gotten its reaches from plundering other countries and exploitation of slaves, as well as a "democracy" with the most developed world's surveillance to monitor its inhabitants, and "eternal" monarchy which is not chosen by elections".
Booyah!! Booyah!! Touch Down, give that man a Cigar! Viva Iran! long live Islamic Democracy!
The Arabs enslaved millions and millions of Africans (and many Europeans too by the Barbary Pirates in the Mediterranean). Iran had East African slaves too (though not as many as Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, because of their extensive sugar plantations). In fact, the practice of enslaving Africans for work on sugar plantations was initially copied by the Portuguese and Spanish based on the Arab model around the Mediterranean basin and later copied by the British and French. The difference was that the English and Americans had major anti-slavery abolitionist movements which succeeded in ending slavery (1807 for the British and 1865 for the US). No comparable such movement existed in the Muslim world, and some of them had slavery well into the 20th century. In fact, slavery still exists to some extent in Sudan. Also, unlike the Islamist fanatics leading Iran, you can mock and ridicule the Queen without fear of imprisonment (or worse). Also, unlike the Islamist fanatics in the IRI, the popularly elected Prime Minister is the most powerful position with the system (and both men and women may be elected, unlike the IRI).
7 comments:
I like the trunk open for car speakers (older BMW 3-series?) blaring out the tunes for the jubilant crowd.
It's something of a Churchill passed over for Atlee moment (1945), we'll have to wait and see.
With the small difference being that the UK is a democracy with freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly and the most powerful individual within the system (the Prime Minister) can be freely criticized without fear and faces popular elections every few years, rather than being a Shia male cleric who is the Supreme Leader-for-Life and who cannot be popularly elected or criticized and who has the final say and effective veto power over all key matters. Other than that, you hit the nail on the head, Mr. Mark.
Anon 10:09PM
You should add that:
....The UK is a democracy with the Hyde Park that had gotten its reaches from plundering other countries and exploitation of slaves, as well as a "democracy" with the most developed world's surveillance to monitor its inhibitants, and "eternal" monarchy which is not chosen by elections.
A-F
@Anonymous June 16, 2013 at 2:44 AM
"You should add that:
....The UK is a democracy with the Hyde Park that had gotten its reaches from plundering other countries and exploitation of slaves, as well as a "democracy" with the most developed world's surveillance to monitor its inhabitants, and "eternal" monarchy which is not chosen by elections".
Booyah!! Booyah!! Touch Down, give that man a Cigar! Viva Iran! long live Islamic Democracy!
The Arabs enslaved millions and millions of Africans (and many Europeans too by the Barbary Pirates in the Mediterranean). Iran had East African slaves too (though not as many as Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, because of their extensive sugar plantations). In fact, the practice of enslaving Africans for work on sugar plantations was initially copied by the Portuguese and Spanish based on the Arab model around the Mediterranean basin and later copied by the British and French. The difference was that the English and Americans had major anti-slavery abolitionist movements which succeeded in ending slavery (1807 for the British and 1865 for the US). No comparable such movement existed in the Muslim world, and some of them had slavery well into the 20th century. In fact, slavery still exists to some extent in Sudan. Also, unlike the Islamist fanatics leading Iran, you can mock and ridicule the Queen without fear of imprisonment (or worse). Also, unlike the Islamist fanatics in the IRI, the popularly elected Prime Minister is the most powerful position with the system (and both men and women may be elected, unlike the IRI).
Surly your comparison of Britain and Churchill with a mullah dictatorship in Iran is a joke?
"Islamic Democracy" is a oxymoron.
Post a Comment