What will Iran bomb first?

[Oliver]

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.

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

Are you deliberately ignorant, Goury?

They do not accept Israel. Because Israel ignores Pals. Iran thinks
that Pals should have a say as well. Therefore they call for a referendum.

What don't you understand about that? Do you think the
Palestinians should have no say at all - being the democratic,
freedom lovin guy you are???

Where is the threat?

And what will Iran's retaliation will be once Israel is going to change
Iran's current peaceful stance?

I know you won't answer - it's too much to ask you to think about it.

 

[Ziggurat]

So what? If Khameini and Ahmadinejad think that Israel belongs to the
Palestinians, that's what you guys would call freedom of speech.

Funny, but that's not something either of those nutjobs believes in. Nor is that point in any way relevant, since I'm not advocating censoring them.

Yet their proposal is a democratic poll

Of Palestinians. To determine what to do with the Israelis.

and they stated that they agree with whatever the outcome may be.

In other words, if the Palestinians decide they want to throw the Israelis into the sea, then that's what Khameini will agree with. And your argument indicates you would to. I will be generous and assume that you're simply too clueless to understand the consequences of your own position.

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

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

Most Jews in Israel wouldn't get a vote in the poll he wants, because they wouldn't be counted as "native". As I asked before, and as you failed to answer in any form, what do you think the results of such a poll would be?

 

[FireGarden]

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?

The Arab proposal indicates that the Arabs are willing to accept an Israeli state -- a willingness you said was lacking. That I provide evidence that you are wrong about that does not mean I think the two-state solution is possible.

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?

I asked "how long?", and you replied "as long as it takes". Is that still your position?

If a two-state solution can be agreed, then I'm for it. But I doubt it will be agreed. Olmert was convinced that Israel's survival required a two-state solution -- he was still unable to deliver one. Why is Livni going to do better?

Time to put other solutions on the table.

 

[FireGarden]

Yes, Democracy sucks for the minority.

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

I agree that genocide is off the table.

But I'm not sure what you think this is:

Ayatollah Khamenei: 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]"

I think it is clearly about voting for a government -- not voting for what kind of state(s). The wiki link makes clear it is stated in the context of a one-state solution.



http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/26/iranian_president_mahmoud_ahmedinejad_on_iran

Ahmadinejad argues that there will be no piece as long as the "Zionist regime" remains. 100 different solutions have been tried and all come to nothing. He says it's because of the aggression of the Israelis.

But when pressed directly on the point of whether or not Iran would accept a two-state solution if that is what the Palestinian leaders agree, then he says "yes"

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] We believe that people have to decide and choose their own fate, the right to self-determination. If they would like to keep the Zionists, they can stay; if not, they have to leave. What do you think the people there want?

AMY GOODMAN: You would support a two-state solution, if they do?

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Wherever people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it’s very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums. We’ve been saying this for several years as a proposal.

So it's not about Zionists voting (alongside Palestinians) about whether a Zionist state remains. Ahmadinejad is talking about supporting a two-state solution if the Palestinians agree to it.

 

[Matteo Martini]

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:

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

Well, well..
Why does Ahmadinejiad said in a pulic meeting "there are people from all nations around the world who wear placards on which there is written death to isreal"?, why did he said that he was not sure that the Holocaust took place? why he never said that (as far as I remember) Israel has a right to exist ? Why he denied there are gays in Iran, why they kill them?

 

[Matteo Martini]

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?

Is not a little bit strange that, every time the Government of the US does not like a country, that country becomes a "terrorist state", a not-real democracy, etc. ?

But this comparison was a particularly weak one on your part, because
1) yes, US elections sometimes do exceed 60%,

Which means that sometimes do not.
Therefore, the US is not a democracy?

2) why do you think those figures are reliable?

CARACAS, Venezuela, Dec. 6 -- In another example of the security, accuracy and auditability of Smartmatic's automated electronic voting system, the results of Sunday's Presidential election in Venezuela were certified by the National Election Commission (CNE), as well as by international observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union. Perhaps more importantly, the results were accepted by all of the political parties and players involved as accurate and representing the will of the Venezuelan people.
http://www.mywire.com/a/PRNewswire//2223535?extID=10051

3) as wildcat mentioned, given high voter turnout in dictatorships, why do you think it's indicative of anything?

Dictatorships do not have elections where people can vote freely for their candidate

4) do you not understand the role of the Guardian Council in deciding who gets to run in the first place?

Do you understand the role of the Republican and Democratic party in deciding who can run for President of the US, in fist place?
Or, do you assume you could run as well?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is not a little bit strange that, every time the Government of the US does not like a country, that country becomes a "terrorist state", a not-real democracy, etc. ?

Uh, no. Look at France. And are you seriously trying to claim that Iran is not a state sponsor of terrorism and that it is a genuine democracy? How far detached from reality is your anti-Americanism?

Which means that sometimes do not.
Therefore, the US is not a democracy?

Uh, no. I'm not the one trying to claim that voter turnout indicates democratic status.

CARACAS, Venezuela, Dec. 6

I ask you for evidence of why you think Iranian election figures are reliable, and you provide me with information about a Venezuelan election. Why did you expect that to fly?

Dictatorships do not have elections where people can vote freely for their candidate

Surprise, surprise: neither does Iran.

Do you understand the role of the Republican and Democratic party in deciding who can run for President of the US, in fist place?
Or, do you assume you could run as well?

Oh, but I can run. My chances of winning are quite small, and quite frankly they should be because I'm a nobody, but I can run. That is not the case in Iran. Furthermore, I'm not just talking about presidential elections, I'm talking all elections. Once again, since you refused to answer last time, do you understand the role of the Guardian Council in Iranian elections?

 

[Pardalis]

The Arab proposal indicates that the Arabs are willing to accept an Israeli state -- a willingness you said was lacking. That I provide evidence that you are wrong about that does not mean I think the two-state solution is possible.

There is an unwillingness to make due on their plan, a few intifadas are proof of that.

I asked "how long?", and you replied "as long as it takes". Is that still your position?

Well it hasn't been that long since I said that, so yes.

If a two-state solution can be agreed, then I'm for it. But I doubt it will be agreed. Olmert was convinced that Israel's survival required a two-state solution -- he was still unable to deliver one. Why is Livni going to do better?

We've got all the ingredients for it to work, the Arab plan, the US' peace plan, everybody seems to be in agreement. All that's needed is for the terrorists to stop killing and for some states to stop funding them, and for the settlers to stop colonizing where they do not belong.

Time to put other solutions on the table.

Such as? A one-state solution is not a solution for the Israelis.

 

[Pardalis]

Do you understand the role of the Republican and Democratic party in deciding who can run for President of the US, in fist place?

You do understand that there's a vote when this happens?

 

[Shadowdweller]

nm

 

[Oliver]

Well, well..
Why does Ahmadinejiad said in a pulic meeting "there are people from all nations around the world who wear placards on which there is written death to isreal"?, why did he said that he was not sure that the Holocaust took place? why he never said that (as far as I remember) Israel has a right to exist ? Why he denied there are gays in Iran, why they kill them?

I don't know why Ahmadinajad says stupid things. However, none
of what he says implies: "I will nuke Israel" - and in strong contrast
to what "Caucasians" say about Iran. So given his - and more importantly,
his Bosses proposal, there should be a democratic referendum.

You cannot deny that, can you?

So where's the threat? And what will happen once Iran actually
has the right to defend themselves?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Uh, no. Look at France. And are you seriously trying to claim that Iran is not a state sponsor of terrorism and that it is a genuine democracy? How far detached from reality is your anti-Americanism?

Evidence that the US are enemies of France?

Uh, no. I'm not the one trying to claim that voter turnout indicates democratic status.

I claim that high-turnout in free elections indicates democratic status

I ask you for evidence of why you think Iranian election figures are reliable, and you provide me with information about a Venezuelan election. Why did you expect that to fly?

Oops..

From The New Yor Times..

TEHRAN — Iranians appeared to have turned out in large numbers on Friday to vote in parliamentary elections nationwide. In Tehran, lines formed at major mosques where polling took place.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/world/middleeast/15iran.html

Surprise, surprise: neither does Iran.

Evidence that people were forcedly sent to vote with a gun held on their head.

Oh, but I can run. My chances of winning are quite small, and quite frankly they should be because I'm a nobody, but I can run. That is not the case in Iran. Furthermore, I'm not just talking about presidential elections, I'm talking all elections. Once again, since you refused to answer last time, do you understand the role of the Guardian Council in Iranian elections?

You can run on the paper.
But you have no chances to get elected, no matter how good your program, unless you are sponsored by any of the two parties, or you have some billions of dollars in the bank.
If you disagree with this, please give me a name of a recently elected President of the US who was not supported by any party and was quite poor.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You do understand that there's a vote when this happens?

And, in order to be voted, you need to be part in the democratic or republican party (at least in some state).
If I am not recorded in any party, I can not vote in some states (closed primary).
Moreover, the party brass will quickly kill off any potential candidate with some "strange" ideas they do not like..

 

[Matteo Martini]

I don't know why Ahmadinajad says stupid things. However, none
of what he says implies: "I will nuke Israel" - and in strong contrast
to what "Caucasians" say about Iran. So given his - and more importantly,
his Bosses proposal, there should be a democratic referendum.

You cannot deny that, can you?

So where's the threat? And what will happen once Iran actually
has the right to defend themselves?

I am not claiming that Iran has no right to defend themselves.
I would like to point out that Bush did not say that America will nuke Iran, he said that nuking Iran was the very last option, but he could not rule it out.
AFAIK, the next president Obama (we hope) has ruled out nukes on Iran (I hope).
Last thing, the fact that Ahmadinejiad says stupid things is probably the very point in discussion.
Had we had Rafsanjiani in power, there would probably be no such mess.

 

[FireGarden]

There is an unwillingness to make due on their plan, a few intifadas are proof of that.

What are you talking about? It sounds now that you are accusing all the Arab states of engaging in/supporting the intifadas.

We've got all the ingredients for it to work, the Arab plan, the US' peace plan, everybody seems to be in agreement. All that's needed is for the terrorists to stop killing and for some states to stop funding them, and for the settlers to stop colonizing where they do not belong.

The violence doesn't need to stop for negotiations to move forward and agreements be made. The 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon proved that.

Such as? A one-state solution is not a solution for the Israelis.

It is for some.
Ilan Pappe is the most vocal.

Meron Benvenisti is another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meron_Benvenisti

Given South Africa type sanctions, I think a one-state solution would become even more acceptable to Israelis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/26/comment

As the Israeli left sees it, the confinement of one and a half million people in a huge holding pen fulfils the ideal of putting an end to the occupation, and furnishes some relief about how "we are not responsible".

Similarly, when in South Africa a failed attempt was made to solve demographic problems by creating "homelands for the blacks", liberals originally supported the idea, and even a portion of the international community viewed the measure as a step toward "decolonisation". But, after a short time, it became clear that the ploy was designed to confer legitimacy on the expulsion of black people, and their uprooting. The bantustans collapsed, demands for civil equality intensified, and the world mobilised for the defeat of apartheid.

[...] The plan will last, however, only as long as the illusion is sustained that "separation" is a means to end the conflict.

The day will come when believers in this illusion will realise that "separation" is a means to oppress and dominate, and then they will mobilise to dismantle the apartheid apparatus. The last ones who will consent to abandon the ideal of "separation" and uphold rights will be the Palestinians, but - to some extent - Sharon's separation plan and Bush's declaration will provoke them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Evidence that the US are enemies of France?

Moving the goalpost, I see. You said countries the US doesn't like.

I claim that high-turnout in free elections indicates democratic status

Why is that relevant, given that Iranian elections aren't free?

Evidence that people were forcedly sent to vote with a gun held on their head.

Boy, do you not have a clue. It's not because people are forced to vote that Iranian elections are not free, it's because they cannot vote for whomever they want to. Which you would have known had you picked up on my multiple references to the Guardian Council. Or did you simply not know the function they serve?

You can run on the paper.
But you have no chances to get elected, no matter how good your program, unless you are sponsored by any of the two parties,

And you can get that sponsorship by getting votes. You don't need the approval of anyone in the party leadership. So the fact that almost everyone who gets elected is either Democrat or Republican isn't really a barrier to getting elected, since there's no barrier (other than getting votes) to running as the candidate of those parties. And the ability to get votes is rather the relevant criteria for getting elected. Furthermore, we HAVE had third party candidates and independents elected, including to the presidency. Lest you forget, Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate. In contrast, you can't even run on paper in Iran unless the Guardian Council decides you can.

Really, your continued attempts to portray Iran as more democratic than the US are getting pathetic.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Moving the goalpost, I see. You said countries the US doesn't like.

The US does not like France?

Why is that relevant, given that Iranian elections aren't free?

Why are the Iranian elections not free?
And why are the US elections free?

Boy, do you not have a clue. It's not because people are forced to vote that Iranian elections are not free, it's because they cannot vote for whomever they want to. Which you would have known had you picked up on my multiple references to the Guardian Council. Or did you simply not know the function they serve?

And here you go again.
Being represented in the ballots means nothing, unless you have space in the television debates.
If you have no space in the media debates, you have no chance (zero) to get elected.
Do you agree on this?
Or you think that you can be elected as President even if you ahve no space in the TV debates?
And now, who chooses who can go to TV debates and who can not?

And you can get that sponsorship by getting votes. You don't need the approval of anyone in the party leadership. So the fact that almost everyone who gets elected is either Democrat or Republican isn't really a barrier to getting elected, since there's no barrier (other than getting votes) to running as the candidate of those parties. And the ability to get votes is rather the relevant criteria for getting elected.

How do you get votes from people if:
1) you do not have (a lot) of money and
2) you have no big group of interests supporting you?
3) you have the media against you?

Furthermore, we HAVE had third party candidates and independents elected, including to the presidency. Lest you forget, Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate. In contrast, you can't even run on paper in Iran unless the Guardian Council decides you can.

What is the difference between running on paper with zero possibility of getting elected and not running at all?

Really, your continued attempts to portray Iran as more democratic than the US are getting pathetic.

I am not attempting enything like this.
You are a liar not well-informed person

 

[Ziggurat]

The US does not like France?

Nope. That's why we call them cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Why are the Iranian elections not free?
And why are the US elections free?

Are you not paying any attention? I'm sorry, but at this point, if you can't figure it out, it's because you don't want to figure it out.

I am not attempting enything like this.
You are a liar not well-informed person

Sure you are. You did it again in your response.

 

[Oliver]

Of Palestinians. To determine what to do with the Israelis.

Uhm, no. Their proposal is about "letting the Palestinians decide in
a democractic referendum". And by Palestinians, they're talking about
jewish and christian Palestinians as well - so no one would be excluded.

 

[Pardalis]

Uhm, no. Their proposal is about "letting the Palestinians decide in a democractic referendum". And by Palestinians, they're talking about jewish and christian Palestinians as well - so no one would be excluded.

As Ziggurat and I have previously said, they talk about "native" Palestinians, and I don't think they think the present residents of Israel are "native" Palestinians, judging from Khamenei's comments about them:

"It is incorrect, irrational, pointless and nonsense to say that we are friends of Israeli people ... Who are Israelis?" ... They are responsible for usurping houses, territory, farmlands and businesses. ... A Muslim nation cannot remain indifferent vis-a-vis such people who are stooges at the service of the arch-foes of the Muslim world."

Also, in the "proposal" it is implied that the referendum, whatever it would be about, would be after Israel would have disappeared. So as you see, it's not a proposal, if they have already decided Israel is gone.