What will Iran bomb first?

[Shadowdweller]

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

The difference between democracy and dictatorship. We here in the US have some rather miniscule Communist and Fascist minorities (in the true sense of the terms, rather than perjorative). That candidates of either persuasion would have effectively zero chance of being elected is due to the opinions of the majority rather any legal barrier or inherent systemic bias.

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).

Registration for one party or another is merely a matter of affixing the appropriate label (or checking the appropriate box) to your name on a registration form. There is no cost, no approval process, no requisites to be overcome beyond those for merely voting, and that in some cases one is excluded from registering for multiple parties at once. Do you imagine that the alternative case, where one is able to simultaneously choose the best candidate for one's own party and the most silly and ineffective candidate for one's opponents be more democratic?

Moreover, the party brass will quickly kill off any potential candidate with some "strange" ideas they do not like.

Contrary to your delusions, the party "brass" has no such power. Do yourself a favor and look up the term "primary" as it pertains to elections. Even in the event that a given candidate loses a primary, they are free to run under a different party or as an independant. This happened to senator Joseph Lieberman in recent memory.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran undeniably has some very anti-democratic factors at work within its government.

1) The Supreme Leader holds overwhelming power over foreign and domestic policy. The position may be held indefinitely. Although theoretically chosen and removable by a representative body, as Ziggurat mentioned, all such representatives must first be approved by said Supreme Leader or his directly appointed Guardian Council.

2) The theocracy must also approve parliamentary candidates prior to election. Rates of rejection have historically been unusually high amongst the Reform Party.

3) Censorship and freedom of the press is infamously bad in Iran. Reporters Without Borders, for instance, rates them as worse than Myanmar. Journalists have been commonly imprisoned for criticism of the government, statements unflattering to Ayatollah Khomeini, posting feminist arguments over the web. Media Outlets have been seized, demolished. In at least one case within the past year a journalist was executed by the government.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25431

4) While this isn't a huge issue since the population of Iran is overwhelmingly Islamic, as mandated by law the highest officials (including the Supreme Leader and the president) may only be Islamic. As per the Iranian constitution, only Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians may even legally conduct religious rites or operate religious schools within the country.

Article 13 [Recognized Religious Minorities]
Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Iranians are the only recognized religious minorities, who, within the limits of the law, are free to perform their religious rites and ceremonies, and to act according to their own canon in matters of personal affairs and religious education.

 

[Oliver]

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.

Linky?

 

[Matteo Martini]

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

Never heard George W. say such a thing.
Do they seem like two enemies?

Please, give me evidence that the US Government does not like France as much as they do not like Iran (after all, US is a general term, it is the US Government who hates Iran, I bet not common US people)

 

[Matteo Martini]

The difference between democracy and dictatorship. We here in the US have some rather miniscule Communist and Fascist minorities (in the true sense of the terms, rather than perjorative). That candidates of either persuasion would have effectively zero chance of being elected is due to the opinions of the majority rather any legal barrier or inherent systemic bias.

You are quoting some small minorities that would have no chance to get elected anyways (such as a pro-free-sex party in Iran, just to make an example).
But there are many candidates that could be elected in the US but they will not have the possibility just to even speak in any public national debate.
There is no practical difference between having a legal barrier that bars some candidates and a media/party system that does basically the same.

Registration for one party or another is merely a matter of affixing the appropriate label (or checking the appropriate box) to your name on a registration form.

Matters up to a point.
If I want to be free (that is, I do not want to be a Republican), can I still vote for the primaries in all the states for a Republican candidate?

There is no cost, no approval process, no requisites to be overcome beyond those for merely voting, and that in some cases one is excluded from registering for multiple parties at once. Do you imagine that the alternative case, where one is able to simultaneously choose the best candidate for one's own party and the most silly and ineffective candidate for one's opponents be more democratic?

There are people saying that having parties is unnecessary.
The point is that, when you are linked to a party, you are not free to move as you like.
You can not easily call George W. an idiot, if you are an elected Republican senator, for example.
Your own party will kill you (metaphorically)

Contrary to your delusions, the party "brass" has no such power. Do yourself a favor and look up the term "primary" as it pertains to elections. Even in the event that a given candidate loses a primary, they are free to run under a different party or as an independant. This happened to senator Joseph Lieberman in recent memory.

Will Lieberman be elected president after changing party?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran undeniably has some very anti-democratic factors at work within its government.

Yes

1) The Supreme Leader holds overwhelming power over foreign and domestic policy. The position may be held indefinitely. Although theoretically chosen and removable by a representative body, as Ziggurat mentioned, all such representatives must first be approved by said Supreme Leader or his directly appointed Guardian Council.

2) The theocracy must also approve parliamentary candidates prior to election. Rates of rejection have historically been unusually high amongst the Reform Party.

3) Censorship and freedom of the press is infamously bad in Iran. Reporters Without Borders, for instance, rates them as worse than Myanmar. Journalists have been commonly imprisoned for criticism of the government, statements unflattering to Ayatollah Khomeini, posting feminist arguments over the web. Media Outlets have been seized, demolished. In at least one case within the past year a journalist was executed by the government.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25431

4) While this isn't a huge issue since the population of Iran is overwhelmingly Islamic, as mandated by law the highest officials (including the Supreme Leader and the president) may only be Islamic. As per the Iranian constitution, only Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians may even legally conduct religious rites or operate religious schools within the country.

1) I have never claimed that Iran is a good example of democratic government; I think it is quite a bad example of "democratic" government, in fact.
2) In the US too, I guess, the President has still to say something about "God", when he takes office
3) Iran, whether you like it or not, has a democracy that has an high percentage of turn-out, if the Iranians did not like their current form of government, they would probably not go to vote at all.

 

[Matteo Martini]

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 give up on this..

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no practical difference between having a legal barrier that bars some candidates and a media/party system that does basically the same.

The party system does nothing to prevent candidates from running. You can run as a member of whatever party you like - all you need to do is get votes in a primary. So no one has the power to STOP you from getting elected. That is indeed a practical difference between our system and Iran. And the fact that you can't see it at this point can only mean that you don't want to see it. Your reflexive anti-Americanism is blinding you to reality.

 

[Oliver]

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.

Well, at least Ahmadinejad isn't singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Israel".
Boy, that would be an outrageous outcry from Politicians and in the
News!

 

[Doctor Evil]

Well, at least Ahmadinejad isn't singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Israel".
Boy, that would be an outrageous outcry from Politicians and in the
News!

Do you have a link to a politician which sing about bombing Iran then???

Here is some of what Ahmadinegad did say:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The Zionists are crooks. A small handful of Zionists, with a very intricate organization, have taken over the power centers of the world. According to our estimates, the main cadre of the Zionists consists of 2,000 individuals at most, and they have another 8,000 activists. In addition, they have several informants, who spy and provide them with intelligence information. But because of their control of power centers in the U.S. and Europe, and their control of the financial centers and the news and propaganda agencies, they spread propaganda as if they were the entire world, as if all the peoples supported them, and as if they were the majority ruling the world. That is a great lie – just like their Jewishness is a great lie. They have no religion whatsoever. They are a handful of lying, power-greedy people who have no religion, who only want to take over all the peoples and countries, and to trample the rights of the peoples.
[...]
I've heard that one of them [PM Olmert] recently said that the idea of Greater Israel is dead. I would like to declare that the idea of "smaller Israel" is also dead. The very notion of Israel is dead, but they are lagging behind the times. Just like the idea of Greater Israel died 30 years ago, and they did not realize this, and have continued to perpetrate crimes for 30 years... Today, I say to them: The idea of smaller Israel is dead.
Let me give them a piece of advice: You would be better off if you stop your oppression and express remorse. If you want to do something good in your lives, leave the land of Palestine, free it from your oppression and occupation. Carry on with your lives. You captivated [Jewish] people with your trickery and lies, and you brought them over there with false promises. You sent them to settlements in order to serve as your human shields, and you continue to perpetrate your crimes. Let me give you some advice: Enough. For 60 years, you have been doing ugly things and committing crimes – leave, and show remorse.
[...]
You've heard on the news that [the Zionists] established a network for kidnapping people. They kidnap oppressed, destitute, ignorant people from other countries, and bring them to the occupied lands to serve as human shields.
[...]
If the occupiers and invaders take ignorant people – even if they are innocent – and use them as human shields in order to carry out invasions, the [Palestinian] people, which is on the defensive, has to conduct resistance, even if it is against innocent people, who were brought to the scene without being aware of it.
[...]
At this very moment, hundreds of American exporters are trying very hard to sell products to Iran, but we refuse. The same goes for investors from some European countries that you mentioned, who insist on investing in Iran – but we set conditions.
[...]

This is an antisemitic rant which include threats to hurt innocent people. If you have comparable speeches by western leaders please supply them.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Well, at least Ahmadinejad isn't singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Israel".
Boy, that would be an outrageous outcry from Politicians and in the
News!

Ahmadinejiad said that the regime of Israel should vanish from the page of time (or he quoted Khomeini on that, do not remember).
I do not know which of the two, McCain`s song or Ahmadinejiad`s quote, is worse

 

[Matteo Martini]

The party system does nothing to prevent candidates from running. You can run as a member of whatever party you like - all you need to do is get votes in a primary. So no one has the power to STOP you from getting elected. That is indeed a practical difference between our system and Iran. And the fact that you can't see it at this point can only mean that you don't want to see it. Your reflexive anti-Americanism is blinding you to reality.

The system is not the party.
The system is the party+the lobbies+the media.
The system does not prevent people from running, but filters them.
It is impossible for a candidate to win, even if he has the best program, if he has no support from the lobbies and the media attacking him.
If somebody would try to get elected with ideas similar to Noam Chomsky, he would be "killed" by the media instantly.
And I think NC`s ideas are much more consistent with reality that both McCain`s or Obama`s.

 

[RandFan]

Well, at least Ahmadinejad isn't singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Israel".

Yeah, but I think most would take it mostly in stride if it wasn't part of a daily stream of rhetoric. McCain hasn't made a lifetime of calling for the destruction of Israel.

Oh, and BTW, have someone call for the destruction of Germany and see how much the Germans like it. The land will still be there. The people will still be there but the government will be eliminated. I doubt many Germans or Italians, or Spanish or any nation would care much for that but Israeli's are suppose to be ok with that.

 

[RandFan]

Do you have a link to a politician which sing about bombing Iran then???

McCain did so jokingly. It was in poor taste.

 

[Shadowdweller]

You are quoting some small minorities that would have no chance to get elected anyways (such as a pro-free-sex party in Iran, just to make an example).
But there are many candidates that could be elected in the US but they will not have the possibility just to even speak in any public national debate.

Broadcasting time is a finite, costly resource. Before one is able to convince a media outlet to provide it, free of charge, one must establish significant public support. Before one is able to claim public campaign funding from the FEC, one must establish significant public support. Where third party candidates have been able to establish such support, they have consistently been granted debate time (e.g. Ross Perot in 1992).

There is no practical difference between having a legal barrier that bars some candidates and a media/party system that does basically the same.

Poppycock. The former is an example of the law (and more particularly the regime or particular individuals that wrote the law) determining who can be elected. The latter, insofar as it pertains to the US, is an example of the voting population rejecting a given candidate. Democracy does NOT imply that every single candidate or philosophy will be given equal credence by a specific voting population.

If I want to be free (that is, I do not want to be a Republican), can I still vote for the primaries in all the states for a Republican candidate?

If you are so phobic of the otherwise meaningless label that you are unwilling to comply with protections against attempts to foist untenable candidates upon the opposition, then no, you don't get to vote between that party's candidates in the primary (in states that even have such protections). One is otherwise free to register for one party as little as ten days before a primary (depending on state), then register back immediately after voting.

You can not easily call George W. an idiot, if you are an elected Republican senator, for example.
Your own party will kill you (metaphorically)

If one insults ANY person in ANY situation in ANY country, one risks offending those who may support or think highly of that individual. Bush has long enjoyed support amongst the religious right, which makes up a significant part of the Republican party's voting base. So what? One does not and should not win elections in a democracy by offending the voters.

2) In the US too, I guess, the President has still to say something about "God", when he takes office

Wrong. The oath the president must swear when he takes office is:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Furthermore, the constitution in the very first amendment states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

----------------------------------------------------------

Iran, whether you like it or not, has a democracy that has an high percentage of turn-out, if the Iranians did not like their current form of government, they would probably not go to vote at all.

Quite aside from the extreme idiocy of trusting statistics from a government that so aggressively censors any criticism (which may nevertheless be true for all that): voter turnout, by itself, is meaningless. MANY countries, such as Britain and Iran itself under the Shah, historically had elected parliaments even while run by monarchs. This did not in any significant degree make them democracies.

 

[Kopji]

If I had a concern at this point it would be that Iran would bomb itself either unintentionally or 'by accident' in a heavy populated area like Tehran.

If an 'accident' could be engineered by Iran's enemies (internal or external) there might be significant political benefit for someone positioned to take advantage.

 

[RandFan]

If I had a concern at this point it would be that Iran would bomb itself either unintentionally or 'by accident' in a heavy populated area like Tehran.

If an 'accident' could be engineered by Iran's enemies (internal or external) there might be significant political benefit for someone positioned to take advantage.

Iran doesn't need enimies.

Three Mile Island accident

Chernobyl disaster

Where the hell are the anti-nuclear postestors when you need them?

Who the hell would have ever thought that liberals would come to embrace nuclear energy just by getting Iran interested.

Go figure.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Quite aside from the extreme idiocy of trusting statistics from a government that so aggressively censors any criticism (which may nevertheless be true for all that): voter turnout, by itself, is meaningless. MANY countries, such as Britain and Iran itself under the Shah, historically had elected parliaments even while run by monarchs. This did not in any significant degree make them democracies.

The validation of the Iranian voting process I wsa talking about does not come from the Iranian government or from any Iranian organization.

You also mean..
Monarchs are incompatible with democracies?
Ype!

 

[Shadowdweller]

The validation of the Iranian voting process I wsa talking about does not come from the Iranian government or from any Iranian organization.

A matter of editing on autopilot That statement should have read: "...from a country where criticism in the press is so aggressively censored by the government..."

You also mean..
Monarchs are incompatible with democracies?
Ype!

Where the monarch, being an official not elected by the populace or their direct representatives, holds any significant power to affect public policy beyond simple respect/endorsement, yes.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Iran doesn't need enimies.

Three Mile Island accident

Chernobyl disaster

Where the hell are the anti-nuclear postestors when you need them?

Who the hell would have ever thought that liberals would come to embrace nuclear energy just by getting Iran interested.

Go figure.

Funny you use an accident happened in the US as an argument against
nuclear power generator in Iran

 

[Matteo Martini]

A matter of editing on autopilot That statement should have read: "...from a country where criticism in the press is so aggressively censored by the government..."

Do you get that the validation of the voting process of the Iranian elections did not came from within Iran, but from international organizations?

Where the monarch, being an official not elected by the populace or their direct representatives, holds any significant power to affect public policy beyond simple respect/endorsement, yes.

I do not understand what you talked about Iran and the UK, monarchy, and not being a democracy..

 

[Matteo Martini]

If I had a concern at this point it would be that Iran would bomb itself either unintentionally or 'by accident' in a heavy populated area like Tehran.

If an 'accident' could be engineered by Iran's enemies (internal or external) there might be significant political benefit for someone positioned to take advantage.

Why this should happen in Iran and not, for example, the US (considering that the US has a far longer list of enemies and much more potential targets)?