The Middle East part 2

[EiZei 0]

But how do you defend yourself from a nuke?

Uhh.. you drop it either on the invading army or the invader's biggest cities?

You drop what on the invading army or the invader's biggest cities? I asked how you defend yourself from a nuke, not how you use one.

Once again I hit the reply button way too quick demonstrating my apparently latent dyslexia.

Quote[/b] ]

And im not talking abt shooting down one, im wondering what weapon that can match a nuke.

Theyre like ninjas, you need a nuke to defeat a nuke.

[Baff2 0]

That raises another question, does undemocratic nations like Iran have the right to defend themselves?

Iran is very democratic. Unfortunatley they keep electing governments that won't do as the West says. So we prefer to label them mad dictators hell bent on world destruction.

Obviously the good people of Iran couldn't actually support their own government. (Recently created by a peoples revolution, with higher proportional votes than our own governments).

Don't be thinking Iran isn't an enlightened and highly civilised culture, just because we are wanting to to bomb them.

[billybob2002 0]

That raises another question, does undemocratic nations like Iran have the right to defend themselves?

Iran is very democratic. Unfortunatley they keep electing governments that won't do as the West says. So we prefer to label them mad dictators hell bent on world destruction.

Obviously the good people of Iran couldn't actually support their own government. (Recently created by a peoples revolution, with higher proportional votes than our own governments).

Don't be thinking Iran isn't an enlightened and highly civilised culture, just because we are wanting to to bomb them.

Iran is not "very democratic." For starters, I suggest you look up the Guardian Council of the Constitution. What that Council did during the 2004 Iranian legislative election was far from democratic.

[EiZei 0]

Well, this was sorta obvious:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501

Quote[/b] ]

EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia

Hezbollah Training Also Linked to Iraq Violence

By JONATHAN KARL AND MARTIN CLANCY

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

[mp_phonix 0]

The difference between Israel having Nukes and Iran having nukes is that we {Israel} don't call for the "total distruction" of nobody. But the Iranians . .well. could you people stop denaing that he said he want's to destroy Israel & all that stuff ? [drive the zionist into the sea etc.]. I've seen that on the news about a undred times.

If Iran stoped calling for the "utter destruction of the zionist pigs", I really don't have problem with them having nukes. but untill then . . .

[i stoped reading about 3 pages ago, Possible I will edit this post later]

edit:

Quote[/b] ]

but also that Hizballah didn't actually attack Israel - kidnapping is not an attack on a nation.

Wha ? That's gotta be a joke.

They attacked a HMMV patrol that was moving in israeli terretory, blew the first HMMV to pices with RPG-29, took two soldiers captive. Btw only one soldier managed to survive that attack.

How come that is not an attack ? what they have to do so it will be considered as an attack ? Rolling with tanks (which they don't have} plus a massive infantry attack ?

I don't get this, You are so anti-Israeli that you don't consider that kind of thing an attack ?

[Lateflip 0]

That raises another question, does undemocratic nations like Iran have the right to defend themselves?

Iran is very democratic. Unfortunatley they keep electing governments that won't do as the West says. So we prefer to label them mad dictators hell bent on world destruction.

Obviously the good people of Iran couldn't actually support their own government. (Recently created by a peoples revolution, with higher proportional votes than our own governments).

Don't be thinking Iran isn't an enlightened and highly civilised culture, just because we are wanting to to bomb them.

High civilized? I guess your kidding, would you call a society where a woman can't go out if she doesn't have her husbands approval high civilized?

[Baff2 0]

Clearly any law that says the husband must allow them to go out isn't holding Iranian women back in any way.

Of course no such law actually exists, so the point is moot.

Since the 1979 revolution, Iranian women have accrued no end of new civil rights. 50% of University students are female.

Working females are common place.

They have the vote.

They are allowed to stay single and their marriages aren't arranged.

However, I am not aware of any Iranian law preventing wives from going out without husbands permission.

I think perhaps you may have this confused with one about wives not being able to work without the husbands permission.

A wife is capable of annulling this right during the wedding ceremony if she so chooses. Although it's traditional, she is not forced into that circumstance by marriage. (Or indeed forced into marriage at all).

In Iran, female workers comprise 38% of the public sector workforce.

[Baff2 0]

Iran is not "very democratic." For starters, I suggest you look up the Guardian Council of the Constitution. What that Council did during the 2004 Iranian legislative election was far from democratic.

The Guardian Council is an indirectly elected second chamber. The members are voted upon by and from the judiciary.

I see nothing undemocratic about it so far.

In 2004 the guardian council vetoed 3,000 people from standing for parliament, including 80 who were holding office at that time and it vetoed some oppositon laws that parliment voted to pass.

The party that lost the election cried fowl.

It is important to remember that Iran is a fundamentalist sate. A theocracy. The Guardian Councils elected purpose is to maintain the religious order of the country, constitutionally it's authority outweighs that of Iranian parliament.

All seems like democracy in action to me.

Not every Democracy or even Republic is based on the French model.

[billybob2002 0]

Iran is not "very democratic." For starters, I suggest you look up the Guardian Council of the Constitution. What that Council did during the 2004 Iranian legislative election was far from democratic.

The Guardian Council is an indirectly elected second chamber. The members are voted upon by and from the judiciary.

I see nothing undemocratic about it so far.

In 2004 the guardian council vetoed 3,000 people from standing for parliament, including 80 who were holding office at that time and it vetoed some oppositon laws that parliment voted to pass.

The party that lost the election cried fowl.

It is important to remember that Iran is a fundamentalist sate. A theocracy. The Guardian Councils elected purpose is to maintain the religious order of the country, constitutionally it's authority outweighs that of Iranian parliament.

All seems like democracy in action to me.

Not every Democracy or even Republic is based on the French model.

The Guardian Council is an undemocratic body. Half of the council is appointed by the Supreme Leader. While the other half of the council is selected by the head the judiciary system, who is appointed by the Supreme Leader, and is approved by the assembly. That Council is the most influential body.

Also, what about th Expediency Council? Is that a democratic institution?

Democracy in action? No.

[Baff2 0]

Maybe not democracy as you are used to, but democracy nonetheless.

You may not personally prefer the constitution of Iran's democracy to your own, but it still has one nevertheless. And an advanced one.

Many democracies have unelected bodies. All elected bodies open a system to corruption and mob rule. Many cultures choose not to rely on them, or to limit them.

The French system is not the only successful democratic model.

[billybob2002 0]

Maybe not democracy as you are used to, but democracy nonetheless.

You may not personally prefer the constitution of Iran's democracy to your own, but it still has one nevertheless. And an advanced one.

Many democracies have unelected bodies. All elected bodies open a system to corruption and mob rule. Many cultures choose not to rely on them, or to limit them.

The French system is not the only successful democratic model.

Are you really that blind? Iran is truly not a democratic nation. Do you even know why there are people called "reformists"? Why did the Council disqualified the majority of reformists candidates in 2004? What did they do to upset the Council? Would a "true" democratic nation do something like that?

[Baff2 0]

What's in a name?

In America the opposition party are called Democrats, does that mean that the Republicans are against democracy?

Would a second chamber upset the first chamber in a true democracy?

Would members of one party/ideology block the appointment to political positions of members of an opposing party or ideology?

Yes.

Quite often.

It happens every day, in every democracy.

Why are you singling out Iran?

Foreign cultures and systems of government are not intrinsically evil or unjust merely because their foreign policy is opposed to ours.

[billybob2002 0]

What's in a name?

In America the opposition party are called Democrats, does that mean that the Republicans are against democracy?

Would a second chamber upset the first chamber in a true democracy?

Would members of one party/ideology block the appointment to political positions of members of an opposing party or ideology?

Yes.

Quite often.

It happens every day, in every democracy.

Why are you singling out Iran?

Foreign cultures and systems of government are not intrinsically evil or unjust merely because their foreign policy is opposed to ours.

I did not single out Iran. I disagree with your belief that Iran is a democratic nation. There are democratic "things" in the Iranian political system but it does make Iran a democratic nation. I gave you examples of clearly undemocratic going ons in the Iranian political system. You simply ignore them or use weak replies.

Oh, all women candidates for President after the 1978 revolution were disqualified by the Guardian Council.

Additionally, I don't remember the United States Supreme Court or a governmental agency banning candidates of the Democratic Party because they were Democrats.

Yes, Iran is a democratic nation....

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]The French system is not the only successful democratic model.

France is not a real democracy

the iranian people is a great pepole, child of the Persia, but unfortunately, their government is a stupid fundamentalist government. i agree with Nemesis6, Iran must not have nukes. this is too dangerous not only for Israel, bul also for other countries.

[Baff2 0]

I don't remember the United States Supreme Court or any American institution banning candidates of the Democratic Party because they are Democrats.:

The oppositon blocks the appointments to the Judiciary, to the U.N. and god knows how many other political positions within the U.S. government.

You have been trying to directly equate positions in your own government directly to positions in the Iranian government.

This is not helpful. The two systems of government are fundamently different. The processes are not the same.

They do not equate.

My point is not to tell you than Iranian governments don't do what you say they do or that each and every element of Iran's government is more democraticly transparent than any American method, only that those examples do not mean that the government isn't highly democratic.

You are judging an alien system by American standards and ignoring all it's achievements in favour of only the elements that you perceive as failings.

If all you are looking for is what's bad about something, then that's all you will ever find.

I feel the same as you Dante, respect for their culture or no respect, I'd rather Iran was denied the ability to make nukes. By force if necessary, as I believe it will be.

[EiZei 0]

Iran has received pretty much the worst possible ratings from freedom house, reporters without borders and heritage foundation in the areas of civil and political liberties, press freedom and economical freedom. On top of that amnesty international has a pretty long rap sheet on them.

I think it would be fair to say that today's Iran does not qualify even as an illiberal democracy, much less as a liberal one.

[Baff2 0]

Name me one country Ammnesty International doesn't have a pretty long rap sheet on.

I don't know what country you are from, but as a control group, it might be intresting to see how much they have written about your own country. I know how much they have written about mine.

(Sorry but I've never heard of the rest of those agencies although I don't doubt they say what you say they do. They all sound remarkably western orientated.

**Edit** I've just looked up Freedom House, it's sponsored by the U.S. government, so I think we can pretty much discount anything they have to say about it as politically bias.

LMAO, The Heritage Foundations goal is to "promote traditional American values and a strong national defence".

I think we can ignore what they have to say also.

I think perhaps you should be looking for sources inside Iran, rather than from an enemy nation on the otherside of the world if you wish to get a better picture.

All I can find on Reporters Without Borders so far, is that they are a French organisation dedicated to freedom of the press. They are unhappy that Iranians can and do imprison members of the press, one specifically mentioned some chap who wrote so blasphemous articles about Allah.

They say that while still the largest imprisoner of journalists in the Middle East, they are doing so less and less and that also, people are given prison sentences but not ordered to report to prison.

In this way independant journalists may still write but have the threat of prison hanging over them.

Sounds like pretty tame stuff to me.

Iran has been getting more and more liberal ever since the revolution. The pace of change is very fast. Even the exiled members of the old regime have been allowed to return and their land restored to them.

In terms of it's librality, try comparing it to many of the surrounding countries and you may perhaps re-evaluate your position. Uzbekistan, Turkministan, Khazakstan, the former governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, Saddam and the Taliban, Saudi Arabia....

Iran has been a beacon of democracy in the area.

[Lateflip 0]

To Buff.

The President of Iran is Allahs deputy on earth until the 12th Imam comes on the doomsday. He can whenever he wishes stop laws the parlament has decided about, and he is both head of state and chief of the government.

Hows that for democratic?

Two of my countrymen are stuck in Iran accused of espionage. They were building houses.

[Baff2 0]

Identical in every way to the Queen of Englands mandate. She is the ruler of Britain and a few other countries by the will of god. Parliament rules in her name by her authority. All laws must be passed by her personally. She is also the head of the church and the armed forces.

Seems like pretty normal practise to me.

How many other democracies have something like this?

Sorry to hear about your countrymen.

[EiZei 0]

Name me one country Ammnesty International doesn't have a pretty long rap sheet on.

I don't know what country you are from, but as a control group, it might be intresting to see how much they have written about your own country. I know how much they have written about mine.

Finland, they complain about the lenght of our alternative to mandatory military service and.. that's about it.

Quote[/b] ]

I think perhaps you should be looking for sources inside Iran, rather than from an enemy nation on the otherside of the world if you wish to get a better picture.

Youre joking right?

Quote[/b] ]

In terms of it's librality, try comparing it to many of the surrounding countries and you may perhaps re-evaluate your position. Uzbekistan, Turkministan, Khazakstan, the former governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, Saddam and the Taliban, Saudi Arabia....

I dont think I have called those countries more free than Iran. My point merely is that Iran is not a real democracy.

Quote[/b] ]

To Buff.

The President of Iran is Allahs deputy on earth until the 12th Imam comes on the doomsday. He can whenever he wishes stop laws the parlament has decided about, and he is both head of state and chief of the government.

Hows that for democratic?

He is.. the decider.

[Baff2 0]

I wasn't joking, no. Why would you think that I am?

I completely fail to see why you would think that an American institution dedicated to advancing American traditions and American national defense policy would give you any kind of insight into a country which it hasn't even had any diplomatic relations with for 30 years, and whose leaders describe it as an evil and enemy state.

What could they possibly know about the place?

Why would you prefer that sort of an opinion to ones given by the people who actually live there?

I know I don't.

Iran has a democratically elected government therefore it is a real democracy.

Hence the name "Republic of Iran".

Amnesty complains about the unjust imprisonment of conscientious objectors in Finland, a charge it also lays against Iran.

To put things into perspective, the Amnesty site has:

10 pages of reports on Iran. (pop 68 million)

10 pages of reports on the U.K. (pop 60 million)

50 pages of reports on the U.S.A. (pop 300 million)

and 1 page on Finland (pop 5 million)

Closer to Iran's region, Amnesty has:

10 pages on Isreal. (pop 6 million)

7 pages on Saudi Arabia (pop 23 million)

9 pages on Afghanistan (pop 30 million)

10 pages on Iraq (pop 26 million)

4 pages on Turkmenistan (pop 5 million)

7 pages on Uzbekistan (pop 28 million)

The size of Iran's Amnesty record per capita has more in common with a western country than it does of a Middle Eastern one.  It is an extremely liberal and progressive society.

It clearly stands out from the rest as a beacon of democracy in the region.

[Lateflip 0]

How can it be democratic that the president of Iran points out the head of television and radio then? That has to be suppressing freedom of speech right?

And how it it democratic that the Parliament has to be approved by the Council of Guardians, in which 50% of the members are pointed out by the President?

[Garcia 0]

How can it be democratic that the president of Iran points out the head of television and radio then? That has to  be suppressing freedom of speech right?

And how it it democratic that the Parliament has to be approved by the Council of Guardians, in which 50% of the members are pointed out by the President?

hmm, so Italy just recently became a country with freedom of speech? I mean, Berlusconi (yes, I probably spelled his name wrong) owned like most of the italian television channels and such...at least he owned the biggest ones...

And is Norway not a democracy? After all, technically the king has to approve of the goverment (this is just more of a tradition, but technically the king could refuse a legally elected goverment to take charge). And 50% of the goverment in Norway have to be christian. Does this somehow prove Norway to not be a democracy? In that case it's worth noting that Norway is considered to be more democratic than both UK and USA (think Sweden was at the top).

[billybob2002 0]

The oppositon blocks the appointments to the Judiciary, to the U.N. and god knows how many other political positions within the U.S. government.

What are you talking about? You are talking mumble jumbo like I do sometimes. I was talking about candidates for office (i.e. the House). You are ignoring what I said.

The size of Iran's Amnesty record per capita has more in common with a western country than it does of a Middle Eastern one. It is an extremely liberal and progressive society.

It clearly stands out from the rest as a beacon of democracy in the region.

I'm sorry but....

Yes, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council agrees with you.

I have given up.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I completely fail to see why you would think that an American institution dedicated to advancing American traditions and American national defense policy would give you any kind of insight into a country which it hasn't even had any diplomatic relations with for 30 years, and whose leaders describe it as an evil and enemy state.

What could they possibly know about the place?

Id say they know quite a bit considering all the messing around with it they have done.

Quote[/b] ]

Why would you prefer that sort of an opinion to ones given by the people who actually live there?

I know I don't.

If you think goverment-approved sources are the best way to get critical information on a country..

Quote[/b] ]

Iran has a democratically elected government therefore it is a real democracy.

Hence the name "Republic of Iran".

I also believe they called Pol Pot's cambodia the "Democratic Cambodia", north Korea the "People's republic of Korea" and of course every fucked up african state likes to put the word democratic and republic in their name.

Quote[/b] ]

Amnesty complains about the unjust imprisonment of conscientious objectors in Finland, a charge it also lays against Iran.

To put things into perspective, the Amnesty site has:

10 pages of reports on Iran. (pop 68 million)

10 pages of reports on the U.K. (pop 60 million)

50 pages of reports on the U.S.A. (pop 300 million)

and 1 page on Finland (pop 5 million)

Closer to Iran's region, Amnesty has:

10 pages on Isreal. (pop 6 million)

7 pages on Saudi Arabia (pop 23 million)

9 pages on Afghanistan (pop 30 million)

10 pages on Iraq (pop 26 million)

4 pages on Turkmenistan (pop 5 million)

7 pages on Uzbekistan (pop 28 million)

This is about the equivalent of calling somebody with 8 speeding tickets worse than somebody who was convicted of 7 murders.

Quote[/b] ]

The size of Iran's Amnesty record per capita has more in common with a western country than it does of a Middle Eastern one. It is an extremely liberal and progressive society.

It clearly stands out from the rest as a beacon of democracy in the region.

If your idea of progressive society is something where under 18-year-old boys can get strung up for gay sex I dont want to know what you consider regressive.