Is Ahmadinajad a "petty dictator"?

andyandy

anthropomorphic ape
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
8,377
this is really a thread to greater understand the political system in Iran...

Bollinger's introduction was that Ahmadinajad had "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"

however, "dictator" would seem like an incorrect label - he's a democratically elected figurehead for a fundamentalist theocracy. i was under the understanding that he wields little real power in the country - as this rests with the religious leaders - the supreme leader and the guardian council. So how much political power does he actually have?

Is iran a theocracy? A religious democracy? A dictatorship? Or something else?
 
this is really a thread to greater understand the political system in Iran...

Bollinger's introduction was that Ahmadinajad had "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"

however, "dictator" would seem like an incorrect label - he's a democratically elected figurehead for a fundamentalist theocracy. i was under the understanding that he wields little real power in the country - as this rests with the religious leaders - the supreme leader and the guardian council. So how much political power does he actually have?

Is iran a theocracy? A religious democracy? A dictatorship? Or something else?
I agree with you, andy, he is a front man for the Mullah's, who I think could be called theocrats or oligarchs. (Not sure which is the best way to phrase that.)

DR
 
this is really a thread to greater understand the political system in Iran...

Bollinger's introduction was that Ahmadinajad had "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"

however, "dictator" would seem like an incorrect label - he's a democratically elected figurehead for a fundamentalist theocracy. i was under the understanding that he wields little real power in the country - as this rests with the religious leaders - the supreme leader and the guardian council. So how much political power does he actually have?

Is iran a theocracy? A religious democracy? A dictatorship? Or something else?

I would think theocracy fits best, as the people who have absolute power and can overrule elections and such are all religious in nature.
 
however, "dictator" would seem like an incorrect label - he's a democratically elected figurehead for a fundamentalist theocracy. i was under the understanding that he wields little real power in the country - as this rests with the religious leaders - the supreme leader and the guardian council. So how much political power does he actually have?
Exactly, Ahmadinejad is a petty dictator's lackey.
 
"all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"

In other words, he is indistinguishable from what you imagine of a petty and cruel dictator. That does not means he is a dictator. Just that he's a douchebag like one.
 
"all the signs" basically renders any examination of the factual underpinning for Bollinger's statement moot. It turns it into a rank insult.

And it would be wrong. Ahmadinejad isn't anything close to a dictator. He can't even get his own economic policies through the legislature.

Nor could I describe him as petty. Petty, to me, means he uses his power for settle personal scores or obtain personal benefits. Nicraragua's Daniel Ortega was "petty" in that way. I've never seen anything to indicate that Ahmadinejad is petty.

Amhadinejad is a fundamentalist, reality-denying antisemite. He willfully presides over a homophobic theocratic government that operates only with the barest illusion of democracy. At most, he aspires to petty dictatorship.
 
Technically he is not a dictator since he does not exercise absolute power, but it is really a semantic difference. The guy is a douchebag,as is the Iranian Government in general.
 
I heard many news-outlets call him a Dictator - which isn't correct
since he's the President of an Republic. Essentially it's like calling
Bush a Dictator. And I have no Idea why the press allows such
name calling.

Like CNN did - for example.


And of course - Fox
happy104.gif
"News" distortions:


 
this is really a thread to greater understand the political system in Iran...

Bollinger's introduction was that Ahmadinajad had "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"

however, "dictator" would seem like an incorrect label - he's a democratically elected figurehead for a fundamentalist theocracy. i was under the understanding that he wields little real power in the country - as this rests with the religious leaders - the supreme leader and the guardian council. So how much political power does he actually have?

Is iran a theocracy? A religious democracy? A dictatorship? Or something else?
Iran has elections, but not democracy because people in Iran do not have the protected rights to decide what they want to say or do.
Just like Saddam got 100% vote and it was not the result of democracy.
Iraq was ruled by a fundamentalist dictator but now is ruled by a group of fundamentalists.
The president is a representative of the group, but he can become a dictator if he succeed in power strugle.
 
I don't know why he gets called a dictator anyway if not out
of political agenda. Saudi Arabia, for example, is an Absolute monarchy
and no one cares. So there is more Democracy in Iran than
other countries can dream of...

I call Hypocrites.
 
I don't know why he gets called a dictator anyway if not out
of political agenda. Saudi Arabia, for example, is an Absolute monarchy
and no one cares. So there is more Democracy in Iran than
other countries can dream of...

I call Hypocrites.

Whether he is a front for the 12 man cabal that rules or not, the end result is a "dictator". That means anyone who decides who can run for "election" in order to satisfy simple criteria for democracy, as you express, can dictate the course of politics. See the connection?

We can of course bring in the ability to imprison anyone openly critical of the regime, execution of homosexuals (nonexistent of course) and much more.

I call something rude.
 
Whether he is a front for the 12 man cabal that rules or not, the end result is a "dictator". That means anyone who decides who can run for "election" in order to satisfy simple criteria for democracy, as you express, can dictate the course of politics. See the connection?

We can of course bring in the ability to imprison anyone openly critical of the regime, execution of homosexuals (nonexistent of course) and much more.

I call something rude.


And I still call Hypocrites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Compare for yourself.

But in any way: Ali Khamenei is the supreme leader, not the
guy who is the current WH-Scapegoat. Another reason to
call Hypocrites, by the way.

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

The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, which is also in charge of overseeing the Supreme Leader, and has the power to dismiss and replace him at any time. As the name indicates, the Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of the Iranian political and governmental establishment, above that of Iran's president. According to the constitution, he has the last say in internal and foreign policies, control of the army and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, control of state broadcast and others (see below).


The President of Iran, who is elected by direct public vote, is the Executive President (Head of government). In 1989, the Prime Minister's office was merged with the figurehead President's office to form the current post of President of Iran. However, certain executive powers such as commandment of the armed forces and declaration of war and peace, remains in the hands of the Supreme Leader.[4]
 
And I still call Hypocrites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Compare for yourself.

But in any way: Ali Khamenei is the supreme leader, not the
guy who is the current WH-Scapegoat. Another reason to
call Hypocrites, by the way.

Your defense of the little twerp (or his malevolent handlers) is touching, but your logic in calling his critics hypocrites on the basis that there are other dictatorships on the planet, is just plain stupid.

There are big differences between Saudi and Iran, which I say in no intended defense of Saudi, but the differences clearly escape your hypocritical analysis.
 
Your defense of the little twerp (or his malevolent handlers) is touching, but your logic in calling his critics hypocrites on the basis that there are other dictatorships on the planet, is just plain stupid.

There are big differences between Saudi and Iran, which I say in no intended defense of Saudi, but the differences clearly escape your hypocritical analysis.


You don't understand my point here:

Some pretty "ugly" Dictators are friends.
Some Presidents are not friends but being called Dictators nevertheless.
So either fair&balanced or unfair&us,us,us.

Anyway: Ahmadinejad is no dictator.
Is there anyone else who has to copy and paste his name? :D
 
this is really a thread to greater understand the political system in Iran...

Bollinger's introduction was that Ahmadinajad had "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"

however, "dictator" would seem like an incorrect label - he's a democratically elected figurehead for a fundamentalist theocracy. i was under the understanding that he wields little real power in the country - as this rests with the religious leaders - the supreme leader and the guardian council. So how much political power does he actually have?

Is iran a theocracy? A religious democracy? A dictatorship? Or something else?

No, he's not really a dictator, he's more like an "elected" figurehead/spokesman for a theocratic dictator. The "elections" are not free elections because the council of guardians decides who may run and who may not. Anyone deemed not Islamic enough is disqualified from running for president.

As far as what is Iran, I would call it a theocracy. The Supreme Leader is a cleric and explicitly derives his authority therefrom. Definitely not a democracy, religious or otherwise. Dictatorship might apply, but is less descriptive than theocracy.
 
Last edited:
When I think of a petty and cruel dictator, I think of Mugabe. He was also "elected" to office but seems bound and determined to drive his country in to the ground through fear, intimidation, violence against his opponents, theft, etc... However, he's nothing more than a two bit thug who managed to con a country into electing him.

Ahmadinajad is an entirely different beast. Unlike Mugabe, a forceful brute, Ahmadinajad is brilliant and methodical. I think by referring to him as a cruel and petty dictator, Bollinger marginalized his influence over the Muslim world as well as his formidability as a leader and potential threat to the United States, Israel, and Europe. I believe it's a mistake to underestimate Ahmadinajad, especially for something as trivial as a soundbite.
 
I think by referring to him as a cruel and petty dictator, Bollinger marginalized his influence over the Muslim world as well as his formidability as a leader and potential threat to the United States, Israel, and Europe. I believe it's a mistake to underestimate Ahmadinajad, especially for something as trivial as a soundbite.

I've heard many commentators suggest that his influence is waning within Iran. I'm not saying I know they're right, but that's the tone of what I've been hearing.
 
this is really a thread to greater understand the political system in Iran...

Darth Rotor posted the following schematic over in my thread on "Is Islam a Totalitarian Ideology":
10962464c89629bdc2.png


Note the broken red arrow that indicates that the Guardian Council vets candidates for president, parliament and the assembly of experts. You cannot call that a democracy in the true sense of the word.
 

Back
Top Bottom