[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

In North America we choose our leaders from the "elite". It is very seldom you see just anyone elected to a prestigious office like President or Prime Minister who has not worked his way up the ladder. Whether we care to admit it or not, not just anyone can be a leader in the Western world, they must come from a certain class and have earned their way into the position. Coming from that "elite" makes it much easier to earn the nomination. Heck, in the United States even a complete imbecile can become President as long as he went to the right school and has powerful friends in high places (and a daddy who was President). Having access to that elite status gives you access to the seats of power.

So was it any different in Iran? Not really. Those in the "elite" were nominated. If you think outside the confines of Western society and place yourself into the context of Iran society, these men that were chosen from their pool of candidates and then the people voted. Its very much like the nomination process here, only less political and more theological. It is definitely superior to that which goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan IMO, and more closely resembles what we like to think of as democracy.

I agree. The "elite" are selected as rulers. They are essentially groomed to that role. There are subtle but stark difference. Take the US for example. Presidential Candidates are selected from their parties, and then voted on.
There is a very large pool of people to choose from, and they are selected in a democratic way, by vote. They are not hand picked by a supreme leader, a single person.

There are also stark theological and political difference in the process in the US and Canada. We all know to well how polarizing the last Presidential election was. It was between 2 people who where on opposite ends of the spectrum. In the Iranian process, you are essentially voting for the same "type" of person. One may "talk" better, but they are all fairly similar in their beleifs.

That's a good question. How about the way it has happened in so many other countries? Grassroots unrest? Or maybe just a military coup? I really don't care how it happens, when it happens, or if it happens at all, it is up to the people of that region to do/say something to cause change. The Iraqi people did not ask for help. They did not ask to be invaded to start their revolution. If it were the way you suggest, there would not be the unrest and turmoil in the country as it now sits. The country would not be on the verge of civil war over the presence of the United States military.

I am all for grassroots uprisings, don't get me wrong. Just the logistics of actually getting it done under Saddam's nose was not feasable. How can they get the word out that the need, or want help for a regieme change? I am sure a few brave had tried, only to be caught, tortured / killed, etc. Too many stories of people "going away" in Iraq makes it not hard to believe that Saddam and Son's squashed many attempts before they even got started.

I think you are thinking about the Kurds, in the north near Turkey. The Sunni's are the majority in Iraq with the #####es having large numbers in eastern Iraq and Iran. The Wahabis are the radicals and based predominantly in SW Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Not the Kurds, it may have been the Wahabis, but I can't remember for sure, and don't have time to look it up right now