What will Iran bomb first?

[Matteo Martini]

This is an example of why it's pointless to discuss anything with you here - you are not a rational person. By that definition of democracy Saddam's Iraq was a democracy, the Soviet Union was a democracy, etc etc.

??
The Iranian presidential election of 2005, the ninth presidential election in Iranian history, took place in two rounds, first on June 17, 2005, and then as a run-off on June 24. It led to the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline mayor of Tehran, with 19.48% of the votes in the first round and 61.69% in the second. Ahmadinejad is believed to have won the second round because of his populist views, especially those regarding the poor and their economic status[citation needed]. The election saw a turnout of almost 60% of eligible voters, seen as a strike back by Iran at the United States' initial allegations that many in Iran would be restricted from voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

Do elections in the US have turn-outs of almost 60%?

[..]
This is why you are revealed as a hypocrite every time you whine about the wart on the nose of Israel or the US, and give a free pass to the cancer infecting damn near every Muslim nation on the face of the earth.

Yuppi!!

 

[Oliver]

Well, I have to agree on this one.

How so?

The two Iranians running the country made a very good and reasonable
proposal - in contrast to what Pardalis thinks about those irrational nutjobs:

Ayatollah Khamenei: "We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.[42]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...for_referendum

Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.[43][44][45][46] Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:[47]

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?
Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.
​

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...for_referendum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...terpretation_of_speech_as_call_for_referendum

 

[soylent]

The straight of hormuz?

 

[WildCat]

??
The Iranian presidential election of 2005, the ninth presidential election in Iranian history, took place in two rounds, first on June 17, 2005, and then as a run-off on June 24. It led to the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline mayor of Tehran, with 19.48% of the votes in the first round and 61.69% in the second. Ahmadinejad is believed to have won the second round because of his populist views, especially those regarding the poor and their economic status[citation needed]. The election saw a turnout of almost 60% of eligible voters, seen as a strike back by Iran at the United States' initial allegations that many in Iran would be restricted from voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

Do elections in the US have turn-outs of almost 60%?

You think it has to do with turnout?! Saddam's Iraq had a 99.99% voter turnout, so it must have been the greatest democracy ever!

Oh, and if every political candidate in the US had to be approved by the Bush Administration to run for office would we really have a democracy?

It's astounding the lengths you go to in order to defend a theocracy which engages human rights abuses on the scale which Iran does.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do elections in the US have turn-outs of almost 60%?

I think I've mentioned this before, but isn't it a little strange that every comparison you make between America and its enemies always tries to favor its enemies?

But this comparison was a particularly weak one on your part, because
1) yes, US elections sometimes do exceed 60%,
2) why do you think those figures are reliable?
3) as wildcat mentioned, given high voter turnout in dictatorships, why do you think it's indicative of anything?
4) do you not understand the role of the Guardian Council in deciding who gets to run in the first place?

 

[Pardalis]

How so?

The two Iranians running the country made a very good and reasonable
proposal - in contrast to what Pardalis thinks about those irrational nutjobs:

A reasonable proposal? When there is no option on the table, it's no proposal.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098167&postcount=269

 

[Oliver]

A reasonable proposal? When there is no option on the table, it's no proposal.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098167&postcount=269

If there is a problem and all the people being involved in - and
affected by that problem and vote about solving the problem,
how in the friggin Canadian deserts is this no option at all?

Stop spilling this crap. And stop saying Iran is a threat or irrational,
when I actually present their pretty rational reasoning regarding
the issue.

 

[Pardalis]

Your post is completely unintelligible.

 

[Oliver]

Your post is completely unintelligible.

You mean like your unwillingness to say what Iran's retaliation will look like?

 

[Ziggurat]

If there is a problem and all the people being involved in - and
affected by that problem and vote about solving the problem,
how in the friggin Canadian deserts is this no option at all?

How about if everyone in the US and everyone in Canada get to vote on whether or not the US should annex Canada? If all the Canadians vote against it and they still lose the vote, tough luck: there was a vote. I think I get the idea of where this is going. If the Germans had just voted on whether or not to exterminate the Jews, it would have been OK. After all, German Jews would be allowed to vote on that too.

 

[Pardalis]

How about if everyone in the US and everyone in Canada get to vote on whether or not the US should annex Canada?

It's not even that Ziggurat. If you read carefully the "proposition", and to keep with your example, what they are suggesting is that once America has already annexed Canada, the referendum would be about what would the "Greater America" government be like.

They are not considering at all a vote whether or not Israel should be annexed, it's a sine qua non condition. It's a referendum once the annexation already has happened. God knows what this referendum would really be about. They don't even say what the question would be.

People like Oliver who don't read past the obvious fluff words like "referendum" and "democracy", they don't see the actual implications of what they mean, and imply.

ETA: it's like saying the religious charities which fund Al Qaeda are good because of the word "charity".

 

[Pardalis]

And what I'd like to know, is why people like Fire Garden think that the Arab nations' proposal is a good thing, and at the same time consider the two-state solution a thing of the past?

FG asked me earlier how long should we push for the two-state solution. Well, if the Arab league still considers it an option, then why not keep at it?

 

[Oliver]

How about if everyone in the US and everyone in Canada get to vote on whether or not the US should annex Canada? If all the Canadians vote against it and they still lose the vote, tough luck: there was a vote. I think I get the idea of where this is going. If the Germans had just voted on whether or not to exterminate the Jews, it would have been OK. After all, German Jews would be allowed to vote on that too.

Yes, Democracy sucks for the minority.

And concerning Genocide: That's off-topic since Iran made a pretty
human, democratic proposal, namely:

Ayatollah Khamenei: "We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.[42]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...for_referendum

 

[Pardalis]

How many more times are you going to post that quote without reading it?

 

[RandFan]

Huh? You asked what pretext could be used to attack Iran, implying (or so I thought) that it would be difficult for the US to form one. It wouldn't be, I gave a slew of various pretexts proffered in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, and how some could be applied to Iran.

Huh? No, you started by saying you couldn't imagine what pretext the US would use. I then gave you WMD.

You consented that "in some ways we exacerbate" and it's my opinion that that exacerbation has outweighed the good we've done. That's what "too many" means here. I gave some examples later on.

And is there a reason to suppose that your list is objective and that you've controlled for your bias?

There are plenty of examples of alliance or creation of despotic, undemocratic regimes. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, Iran. Balanced against Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Turkey. A lot can be excused by having to thwart Soviet influence, but a) the canard of "spreading/promoting democracy as a consistent foreign policy" is still a canard, and b) we've continued this lousy foreign policy post-USSR dissolution. I imagine the next blowback state will be Pakistan, a decade or less after we leave there and Afghanistan.

It's a complex and messy issue that won't be unravalled with your simplistic assertions. You are simply seeing what you want to see because of confirmation bias. I concede that we have made mistakes but it's not as easy as thinking that there was always a good and bad choice. Often there were two bad choices and we had to find the best choice. That we didn't make the choice that you think we should have doesn't make you right.

 

[Ziggurat]

And concerning Genocide: That's off-topic since Iran made a pretty
human, democratic proposal, namely:

What a useful fool you are. Do you honestly think that Khameini is calling for a vote because he believes in democracy? Of course not. Iran itself is a testament to that. He's calling for something he knows he can't get in the hopes of making himself sound like the good guy. But what, exactly, do you think the phrase "Palestine belongs to Palestinians" means? Do you think he means the West Bank and Gaza? No. He means all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians. He wants to let a Palestinian vote determine the fate of the Israelis. Seriously: how do you think such a vote would turn out?

 

[Oliver]

What a useful fool you are. Do you honestly think that Khameini is calling for a vote because he believes in democracy? Of course not. Iran itself is a testament to that. He's calling for something he knows he can't get in the hopes of making himself sound like the good guy. But what, exactly, do you think the phrase "Palestine belongs to Palestinians" means? Do you think he means the West Bank and Gaza? No. He means all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians. He wants to let a Palestinian vote determine the fate of the Israelis. Seriously: how do you think such a vote would turn out?

So what? If Khameini and Ahmadinejad think that Israel belongs to the
Palestinians, that's what you guys would call freedom of speech. Yet
their proposal is a democratic poll - and they stated that they agree
with whatever the outcome may be.

So where is the threat here? - Other than a democratic solution some
in here and Israel hate in the name of the Status Quo?

So to quote Pardalis: Do you hate freedom and democracy?

Or are you concerned about Jewish people being a minority in this poll?

 

[Pardalis]

A poll about what?

 

[Oliver]

A poll about what?

A referendum in which the Palestinians [including those being refugees],
the Jews and Christians vote for the solution they prefer for the fate
of the region.

That's what Iran proposes without making any threat. Plus they
say that they will accept whatever Jews, Pals and Christians decide
about the place that used to be the one they belong.

That's a democratic option.

And somehow you don't seem to be willing to understand this
option, despite your love for freedom and democratic choices.

 

[Pardalis]

A referendum in which the Palestinians [including those being refugees], the Jews and Christians vote for the solution they prefer for the fate
of the region.

First of all, you've got to set your mind on a word, and stick with it. It's either a poll or a referendum. Words have meaning.

Second of all, you clearly haven't read the "proposal". This is not what they are saying at all.

Plus they say that they will accept whatever Jews, Pals and Christians decide
about the place that used to be the one they belong.

This is contradicted by this latest statement by your buddy Mahmoud, that I've quoted before but that you keep ignoring:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ... But we feel pity for those who have been deceived or smuggled into Israel to be oppressed citizens in Israel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel