Time to kick Iran

[Pardalis]

• Death row
• Limited Freedom of Speech
• Limited access to democratic decisions
• Creationism
• Prohibition of clothing
• Prohibition of slogans on T-Shirts
• Prohibition of Sexual Freedoms
• And on and on and on ...

Replace "Creationism" with "Sharia" and you've got Iran.

 

[Flo]

Ducked out of that one, huh?

What has Chavez been doing against his own people?

What Marksman wrote, plus http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83294

 

[marksman]

Replace "Creationism" with "Sharia" and you've got Iran.

To be fair, creationism is part of Sharia. It's just Islamic creationism.

 

[Flo]

Replace "Creationism" with "Sharia" and you've got Iran.

and also "death row" with "public hangings for drug and alcohol consumption, (supposed) adultery, sex out of wedlock, etc."

 

[plumjam]

Where do you get that number from?
1: 1994: Elected President of Venezuela for the first time
2: 2000: Chavez re-elected
3: 2004: Chavez defeats recall referendum
4: 2006: Won re-election
As far as I can tell, those are all of the elections held to determine if Chavez should be President. What were the six other elections?

Yes, not all were Presidential elections. Some were party elections and referenda on the direction of government and changes to the constitution. The 1994 one and these
http://www.electionguide.org/search-results.php?type=&country=231&search_year=any&submitted=1&submit.x=30&submit.y=13&submit=Search
make 10
Still a pretty impressive record, and verified internationally:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3571350.stm

Probably? You mean, you don't know?
At any rate, he was elected only in the most nominal sense. The candidates for nomination are all pre-selected by the Council of Guardians, a council of fundamentalist Shi'a clerics. When Ahmedinejad ran (and won), the Council approved only six candidates or the 90 who applied. All applicants who were considered reformers or independents were rejected. Because of the outcry, the Council relented and allowed two nominal reformers on the ballot.

There were three "Conservative candidates", including Ahmedinejad. There were three "Reform" candidates -- all but one of whom had been Conservative Party candidates previously, and a "Trans-Party" candidate who was also most recently a Conservative Party candidate.

Ahmedinejad got only 19.7% of the vote on the first round of voting, and beat Rafsanjani (the Trans-Party candidate) on the second round. One of the "Reform" candidates was only 2 points behind Ahmedinejad on the first round, but was excluded form the second round, leaving a choice between Rafsanjani and Ahmedinejad, two members of the Establishment.

In the end, it wasn't much more of a choice than an ice cream parlor that lets you pick between vanilla, french vanilla and lite vanilla.

Each country has its own system which is going to vary according to culture, history etc..
The important point is that outsiders don't feel they have an automatic right to meddle in a nation's internal politics. I could criticise the US system for elections being bought by big business, and too many successful representatives being from a privileged class of families (Bushs, Clintons, Kennedys).
But I'd never do that Because it's up to US citizens whether they want that or not.

Ah, the tu quoque. Is there no leader for whom it cannot serve as apologetic?

My point was relevant in the context it was used.

 

[plumjam]

What Marksman wrote, plus http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83294

very poor

 

[Darth Rotor]

Is there any solid evidence, for " Ahmadinejad is spending millions to kill Americans ", other than the word of an anonymous Shiite Muslim militia?

Yes, one data point being that today, or yesterday, an Iranian agent was arrested in Iraq.

FWIW

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93889

If you'd like more data points, search for the poster BeAChooser. In one of our disagreements ( I disagreed with his opinion that the US ought to attack Iran soon) he cited a variety of sources that showed Iran to be materially involved in keeping the violence in Iraq going for their own ends.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ahmadinejad has shown zero respect for those who have died due to 9/11. He mocks them with a publicity stunt.

He really makes me sick.

Rand, at the risk of pissing off you and a number of other folks, I will engage in some out of the box thinking.

I appreciate the NYPD's reluctance to waste time on a security detail for Mahmoud. I feel, however, that the decision misses a chance at a PR win, but it would have to be handled cleverly to be so achieved. Given the clumsiness of this administration's rhetoric and PR game, perhaps it's too complex for their playbook.

What I'd like to see is Mahmoud, with a detail of 4 of his own Secret Service guys and two interpreters, and at most two NYPD cops in company, allowed to arrive at GZ to pay his respects.

I'd like to see our very own Gravy there to meet him, and as many of the 9-11 widows as can be arranged. Add about thirty Firefighters as a Greek Chorus, and let the fun begin.

If he has the balls to accept those conditions, he ought to be allowed a chance to actually pay his respects. Showing that kind of tolerance and open handedness to him, even though he's been a bit of a jerk lately, could be a play at getting a bit more high ground after his sad display of trash mouth last time he was in town. Kill him with kindness.

The mayor and NYPD can't see the forest for the trees, I think, but I do appreciate the depths of feeling involved and how that colors their view, not to mention the potential for a riot if enough people with an attitude decide to show up and make a scene. That too would be entertaining, in a George Carlinesque way, but now my sick sense of humor is in play.

No risk, no reward.

DR

 

[marksman]

Yes, not all were Presidential elections.

So he wasn't actually elected 10 times, was he?

Some were party elections

None of the elections listed were "party elections"

and referenda on the direction of government and changes to the constitution.

Well, on that basis, Bush can claim to be elected as many times as his legislative agenda has passed congress, which would number in the dozens!

Try to be accurate. When you claim that a guy who has been in office 12 years was elected 10 times -- meaning he ran for election almost every year! -- you look pretty silly, and it begins to look like you're willing to play loose with the facts to make cheap political points.

Chavez was elected three times and he successfully fought off an attempt to recall him. That's a solid record. You don't need to embellish it by pretending legislative referenda are in fact Presidential elections.

Each country has its own system which is going to vary according to culture, history etc..The important point is that outsiders don't feel they have an automatic right to meddle in a nation's internal politics.

No, the point is that calling Ahmedinejad "elected" is like calling Khruschev elected because he was chosen by a vote of members of the Communist Party, even though there wasn't really much of a choice at all.

Ahmedinejad was selected not by the people, but by the Council of Guardians, six Shi'a clerics, who chose a handful of nearly identical candidates and then let people vote for one of them. As I said, it's like going into an ice cream shop and being given a choice between vanilla and french vanilla. Wouldn't it be disingenuous to say you had a fair choice?

My point was relevant in the context it was used.

What point? Someone criticized Ahmedinejad's Iran for civil rights violations and you countered with examples of civil rights violations in Afghanistan and Iraq. You committed the tu quoque fallacy and I called you on it.

 

[marksman]

I appreciate the NYPD's reluctance to waste time on a security detail for Mahmoud. I feel, however, that the decision misses a chance at a PR win, but it would have to be handled cleverly to be so achieved. Given the clumsiness of this administration's rhetoric and PR game, perhaps it's too complex for their playbook.

What I'd like to see is Mahmoud, with a detail of 4 of his own Secret Service guys and two interpreters, and at most two NYPD cops in company, allowed to arrive at GZ to pay his respects.

I'd like to see our very own Gravy there to meet him, and as many of the 9-11 widows as can be arranged. Add about thirty Firefighters as a Greek Chorus, and let the fun begin.

All that would happen is Ahmedinejad would get to look sympathetic by making nice with the 9/11 widows. If they start to confront him, he'd act the victim. It will look like the Americans are beating up on him, or worse, blame the Administration for trying to tie Iran to 9/11 the way they tried to tie Iraq to 9/11.

Then he'd go to the UN and claim that he was defending those poor widows who were lied to by their government by confronting the person who was truly behind the plot: Bush. It would have been Chavez' UN stump speech on steroids.

The only PR win would have been Ahmedinejad.

not to mention the potential for a riot if enough people with an attitude decide to show up and make a scene. That too would be entertaining, in a George Carlinesque way, but now my sick sense of humor is in play.

Yeah, but it wouldn't reflect well on New York or America.

 

[Darth Rotor]

All that would happen is Ahmedinejad would get to look sympathetic by making nice with the 9/11 widows. If they start to confront him, he'd act the victim. It will look like the Americans are beating up on him, or worse, blame the Administration for trying to tie Iran to 9/11 the way they tried to tie Iraq to 9/11.

Then he'd go to the UN and claim that he was defending those poor widows who were lied to by their government by confronting the person who was truly behind the plot: Bush. It would have been Chavez' UN stump speech on steroids.

The only PR win would have been Ahmedinejad.


Yeah, but it wouldn't reflect well on New York or America.

Where did I mention any access available to the media? I just want to see Gravy give Mahmoud some "I Love NYC anti-CT" love. Call me selfish, if you like.

Your points on the risks of playing into his hand are noted, and part of why I pointed out the need to handle it cleverly. Again, may not be in the playbook.

DR

 

[marksman]

Where did I mention any access available to the media? I just want to see Gravy give Mahmoud some "I Love NYC anti-CT" love. Call me selfish, if you like.

I'd love to see that too. I just know how it would play in the media, whom you couldn't keep out of Grund Zero if Ahmedinejad was there. Heck, Ahmedinejad would probably bring his own crew along.

 

[Farscape]

(An Aside) I apologize for the length of my first post. Also as a newbie I am not allowed to post links but do have them available.

Don't bother trying to convince Oliver that Iran actually poses a threat to Israel or the US. He has been shown the evidence numerous times but still repeats his claim.

Posted by Oliver in response. No. There is no threat for the United States unless you argue that
Israel is the fifty-first state of the US. Period. Everything else is
"SaddamWMDMushroomcloudOMG!AlQaidaDoomsday"-Propaganda.

But you surely aren't so dumb to fall for this propaganda again,
are you?

Yes I am.

Iran aids Syria's CW programme

24 October 2005
Iran aids Syria's CW programme

By Robin Hughes JDW Middle East Editor
London

With the release of the UN International Independent Investigation Commission interim report on 20 October into the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri increasing international pressure on Syria, a diplomatic source has said that Damascus is nevertheless pursuing what they describe as "an innovative chemical warfare [CW] programme in co-operation with Iran".

The essence of this co-operation, the source told JDW, "is Tehran's contractual commitment, made to Syria a few months ago, to provide Iranian CW technical assistance to facilitate Syria's CW programme".

Utilising this assistance, they said, Syria hopes to reach an independent production capability of precursors for producing CW agents, which it has so far been unable to achieve.

According to the source, Iran will assist Syria in the planning, establishment and pilot operation of about four or five facilities throughout Syria for the production of precursors for VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent.

"This project is unprecedented and millions of US dollars have been allocated to implement it," the source said.

"The project includes building major facilities, including advanced equipment to produce tens to hundreds of tonnes of CW precursors per year that are sufficient for CW industrial manufacturing pilot production."

Iran a country ruled by peace lovers holding hands with the Syrians another misunderstood peace loving nation.

Dozens died in Syria-Iran missile test'

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

Syrian and Iranian Presidents, Bashar Assad, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, listen to national anthems at the Ash-Shaeb presidential palace in Damascus, Thursday.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

Reports of the accident were circulated at the time; however, no details were released by the Syrian government, and there were no hints of an Iranian connection.
(snip)

Who pose no threat to the United States or its allies.

Zionist regime's allies to receive response on World Qods Day
Tehran, Sept 19, IRNA

Iran-US-Spokesman
Supporters of the Zionist regime will receive their response during the world Qods Day's rallies, government spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Elham, said Wednesday.

The spokesman made the remarks during his weekly press conference while commenting on the current visit to the occupied Palestine of the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Qods Day is held each year on the last Friday of Muslims fasting month of Ramadan after it was nominated by the late Founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, as a day to voice the protest of the Islamic Ummah against the Zionists.

The day falls on October 12 this year.

"The US loses all opportunities to cooperate with regional and other world states by trying to support a regime (the Zionist regime) which is now at its weakest political and social position," Elham said.

He warned that Washington's insistence on its wrong policies and arrogant approaches would have no result "but further political disgrace" for itself.

Referring to the approaching World Qods Day, the spokesman stressed, "Supporters of the Zionist regime will definitely receive the final response for their support on that day."

Oliver please forgive me if I (like Monica) choose not to swallow.

Have a blessed day, ya heah!

Edited to remove extra unquote.

 

[Gurdur]

(An Aside) I apologize for the length of my first post. Also as a newbie I am not allowed to post links but do have them available.

Your first post? And you used it HERE in this thread?


Well, a very big welcome to you, Farscape, but if I may so humbly suggest, masochism as a way of life is just so over-rated.

 

[plumjam]

So he wasn't actually elected 10 times, was he?

None of the elections listed were "party elections"
Well, on that basis, Bush can claim to be elected as many times as his legislative agenda has passed congress, which would number in the dozens!
Try to be accurate. When you claim that a guy who has been in office 12 years was elected 10 times -- meaning he ran for election almost every year! -- you look pretty silly, and it begins to look like you're willing to play loose with the facts to make cheap political points.
Chavez was elected three times and he successfully fought off an attempt to recall him. That's a solid record. You don't need to embellish it by pretending legislative referenda are in fact Presidential elections.

You're right, my mistake

No, the point is that calling Ahmedinejad "elected" is like calling Khruschev elected because he was chosen by a vote of members of the Communist Party, even though there wasn't really much of a choice at all.

Ahmedinejad was selected not by the people, but by the Council of Guardians, six Shi'a clerics, who chose a handful of nearly identical candidates and then let people vote for one of them. As I said, it's like going into an ice cream shop and being given a choice between vanilla and french vanilla. Wouldn't it be disingenuous to say you had a fair choice?

I feel a similar way about politics here in the UK. Instead of a choice of 6 candidates it's a choice between 2 candidates.
The policies of these 2 candidates typically disagree on very little that's of any importance. Their policies typically favour big business, globalisation, and capitalist consumerism.. at the expense of the ordinary lower class person.
The media portrays these 2 candidates as of some significant difference, when this is not the case.
In effect I am living in a one party state, with an illusion of choice.
This goes for many other so-called democracies. It's no wonder that fewer and fewer people bother to vote.

So my point is that we aren't really in any position to criticise other forms of fairly balloted democratic systems.

What point? Someone criticized Ahmedinejad's Iran for civil rights violations and you countered with examples of civil rights violations in Afghanistan and Iraq. You committed the tu quoque fallacy and I called you on it.

My point was that Iran has some abuse of human rights, but not nearly as bad as the abuses in its neighbours under US rule. It was valid to use this because the poster had been objecting to the fact that the Iranian leader criticises the USA at the UN... and she was saying that he shouldn't do this because the Iranian leader (I assume) perpetrates human rights abuses in his own nation.

 

[marksman]

You're right, my mistake

No problem. It's very rare to see people on this forum admit when they erred and to so with grace. That speaks very well of you.

I feel a similar way about politics here in the UK. Instead of a choice of 6 candidates it's a choice between 2 candidates.

Yes, everybody in a democracy feels their choices are constrained. But if you actually look at the process of picking candidates in Iran, you'll see how illusory the whole thing is.

In fact, even the six-member council is constrained because the country is in fact led by the Supreme Leader (the grand Ayatollah). In Ahmedinejad's election, the Supreme Leader got the council to change the ballot by writing a letter. And this was remarkable since the council didn't seem to have the authority to change the ballot. They simply did it because the Supreme Leader told them to.

Imagine the Queen telling the Labor and Conservative parties to change their candidates. As dissatisfied as you may be with the political process in the UK, it is much much worse in Iran.

In effect I am living in a one party state, with an illusion of choice.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I've lived in a one-party state and I've been to England. The difference is huge.

So my point is that we aren't really in any position to criticise other forms of fairly balloted democratic systems.

I don't understand this argument at all and you're not the first to make it. Do we not have faculties of reason? Do we not have minds capable of rational analysis? Why does the fact that we live in an imperfect society mean we cannot criticize other peoples' imperfect societies?

I also note that you don't have any problem criticizing Western nations with which you disagree. (Nor should you.) Why should Iran be treated differently?

My point was that Iran has some abuse of human rights, but not nearly as bad as the abuses in its neighbours under US rule.

Right. That's a tu quoque.

It was valid to use this because the poster had been objecting to the fact that the Iranian leader criticises the USA at the UN... and she was saying that he shouldn't do this because the Iranian leader (I assume) perpetrates human rights abuses in his own nation.

I didn't get that from her post at all. As you rightly point out, that was an assumption on your part. Perhaps you could have asked her to clarify the point. If that's what her argument was, you could rightly chastise her for committing a tu quoque fallacy. No need to counter her tu quoque with one of your own. That doesn't help anybody.

 

[plumjam]

In fact, even the six-member council is constrained because the country is in fact led by the Supreme Leader (the grand Ayatollah). In Ahmedinejad's election, the Supreme Leader got the council to change the ballot by writing a letter. And this was remarkable since the council didn't seem to have the authority to change the ballot. They simply did it because the Supreme Leader told them to.

Imagine the Queen telling the Labor and Conservative parties to change their candidates. As dissatisfied as you may be with the political process in the UK, it is much much worse in Iran.

I don't understand this argument at all and you're not the first to make it. Do we not have faculties of reason? Do we not have minds capable of rational analysis? Why does the fact that we live in an imperfect society mean we cannot criticize other peoples' imperfect societies?

I also note that you don't have any problem criticizing Western nations with which you disagree. (Nor should you.) Why should Iran be treated differently?

Well, with Iran it's a bit different because it sees itself as more a theocracy than a democracy.. so how can we apply the same kind of standard?
It doesn't come from the tradition of western liberal democracy. For all I know most people in Iran are happy to have a Grand Ayatollah in place at the head of society, due to the highly religious nature of their culture. How many people go to Iran and actually ask people which system they would prefer?

You could compare it to the Vatican .. a state with a religious head, and its own traditional forms of choice and decision making. No one advocates that we force the Vatican to introduce our particular form of liberal democracy.

This is why I am more reluctant to criticise a society like Iran than societies modelled more like my own.
Also, it's true that sometimes when people criticise the societies of other nations, they're doing it not because they're concerned about the people in that society. They just want to appear concerned in order to strengthen their 'justification' for effecting a coup or an invasion of that country. That's happening a lot at the moment with Iran. And it's bogus.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I feel a similar way about politics here in the UK. Instead of a choice of 6 candidates it's a choice between 2 candidates. The policies of these 2 candidates typically disagree on very little that's of any importance. Their policies typically favour big business, globalisation, and capitalist consumerism.. at the expense of the ordinary lower class person. The media portrays these 2 candidates as of some significant difference, when this is not the case. In effect I am living in a one party state, with an illusion of choice. This goes for many other so-called democracies. It's no wonder that fewer and fewer people bother to vote.

You might be surprised at how many Americans agree with this general assessment.

So my point is that we aren't really in any position to criticise other forms of fairly balloted democratic systems.

Can you list a few of these fairly balloted democratic systems one ought not to criticize? I, for one, think the Italians do a bang up job.

My point was that Iran has some abuse of human rights, but not nearly as bad as the abuses in its neighbours under US rule.

Who is under US rule in the PG? Iraq is at present under barely effective rule of any sort, being in a bit of a civil war, though the Kurds seem to be making strong progress at stabilization.

Who else did you have in mind?

It was valid to use this because the poster had been objecting to the fact that the Iranian leader criticises the USA at the UN... and she was saying that he shouldn't do this because the Iranian leader (I assume) perpetrates human rights abuses in his own nation.

Ah. He's free to be a hypocrite if he likes, which he did. Whether or not it influences his political fortunes remains to be seen.

DR

 

[marksman]

Well, with Iran it's a bit different because it sees itself as more a theocracy than a democracy.. so how can we apply the same kind of standard?

That way lies madness. Why apply the same standards of behavior on the United States, a Constitutional Republic with a bicameral legislature, as we do on England, a parliamentary democracy with a hereditary monarch?

The answer of course is that most of us don't think standards of behavior are subjective. If you really believe all ethical behavior is subjective, on what grounds can you criticize anybody? America's invasion oof Iraq is simply Americans acting like Americans. Who are you to judge? Hutu and Tutsi committing genocide in Africa? Those goofy Africans! Who's to say they even mind all the genocide? Adhering to a subjective standard of judgment makes it impossible to judge anybody.

You could compare it to the Vatican

Okay. Let's do that.

Vatican City is about 44 hectares in size, the smallest independent nation in the world. It has 821 subjects as of July 2007. Almost all of these subjects are Catholic clergymen and members of the Swiss Guard. Most of these people have dual citizenship with their nation of origin, and thus are able to vote in those elections (assuming their nation of origin allows elections). Anybody can relinquish their Vatican citizenship at any time, and if they have no other citizenship, are automatically Italian citizens with the right to vote in Italian elections. As far as I can tell, the Holy See operates more as an organization within Italy than as a governmental body, as pertains to the control it has over its citizens. All the citizens are employees of the Church and are within walking distance of Rome. Vatican citizens have a full panoply of civil rights, including free speech and are allowed to criticize even the Pontiff. The worst that might happen is being fired from the Church and having to find a job elsewhere in Rome.

In comparison, Iran is 164,800,000 hectares in size, the 18th largest country in the world. It has more than 70 million citizens as of 2006. Iran recognizes no dual citizenship. Iran does not have free elections as all candidates are vetted by the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians comprised of clergy. Iran's vast population cannot move freely to other nations, are almost entirely native to the nation. Ciriticism of the Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader is considered blasphemous and is criminal in nature, for which one could receive fines, imprisonment or corporal punishment, even the death penalty. Iran's media is highly censored, though mostly for blasphemy and criticism of the clergy, not criticism of the President.

Yes, comparing the Holy See to Iran is enlightening. Iran does not compare well to the Holy See.

No one advocates that we force the Vatican to introduce our particular form of liberal democracy.

Because it would be silly. The Vatican's only residents are its employees, who are free to leave at any time, most of whom participate in elections in their country of origin.

They just want to appear concerned in order to strengthen their 'justification' for effecting a coup or an invasion of that country.

Here on the skeptics forum, claims of being able to divine what is going on in the minds of those with whom you disagree is greeted with, well, skepticism. You won't find many people persuaded by such arguments.

I for one do not criticize Iran because I want an invasion. In fact, I recently stated flat out in multiple threads that I oppose coups and I don't want anybody invading Iran. I criticize Iran because it is worthy of criticism.

In threads about other nations, by the way, I criticize those nations -- the UK, US, Venezuela, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few. I don't want you to think it's all about Iran.

 

[Farscape]

Your first post? And you used it HERE in this thread?


Well, a very big welcome to you, Farscape, but if I may so humbly suggest, masochism as a way of life is just so over-rated.

Gurdur,

Yes a small streak of masochism does run through me. I needed some sort of anomaly in my personally to keep my high self esteem in check.

Thank you for the gracious welcome. Unfortunately, time constraints leave me little opportunity to post, however, I have always looked forward to the limited time I am able to spend here.